It's unclear to me why this needs to be an RFC. Is the point to register specific Authentication-Results header values in IANA?
Otherwise, this seems like nothing more than some local special anti-spam sauce. Like Scott says, this sounds like SPF bestguess, perhaps he can point out any discussion that was had about bestguess and why it was left out of the SPF RFC. Brandon On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please be sure to read RFC7601 while deciding, as it sets out the rules > for the registries related to Authentication-Results and what's appropriate > to put in them. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Kouji Okada <o...@lepidum.co.jp> wrote: > >> Mark >> >> Thank you for your comment. >> >> The authors are now discussing which >> authentication-method or authentication-code is suitable >> to be marked in the authentication-results. >> >> > Trying to guess where to send (unasked for) reports is guaranteed to >> end with poor outcomes. >> >> I totally agree. >> >> Best regards, >> Kouji Okada >> >> > 2017/03/28 22:26、mham...@americangreetings.comのメール: >> > >> > On 3/25/2017 12:45 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> For SPF, we had "best guess" [1], which we chose not to standardize at >> all >> >> because we didn't think it appropriate to break the opt-in nature of >> SPF. >> >> This concerns me a bit here, but I'm mostly writing to support the >> idea of >> >> distinguishing between some kind of guess and an actual DMARC result. >> >> >> >> I think "dmarc=bestguesspass" is far superior to "dmarc=pass", since >> this is >> >> not a DMARC pass. I think "dmarcguess=pass" would be better since >> this isn't >> >> properly a DMARC check at all. >> >> >> >> Scott k >> > >> > I absolutely agree with Scott on this. "bestguesspass" is NOT DMARC. It >> is local policy applied in a DMARC like manner. >> > >> > This is also why there is no legitimate place to send reports. The >> sender did not publish a DMARC record and did not ask for reports. Trying >> to guess where to send (unasked for) reports is guaranteed to end with poor >> outcomes. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > dmarc mailing list >> > dmarc@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
