On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:01 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> > On 12/30/20 5:48 AM, Todd Herr wrote: > > > I propose to add two new result name codes, named after the policy >> requests: >> >> dmarc=quarantine, and >> >> dmarc=reject (of course, you only see this if the filter didn't honor >> the request). >> >> > I do not support this, because quarantine, reject, and none are not > Authentication Results, but are instead both policy requests and > disposition decisions. > > Then we should remove DMARC from auth-res altogether because it is not an > authentication mechanism. Either we fully support DMARC in auth-res or > remove it. This half-assed state of unlessness serves nobody. > > > I disagree. DMARC has rules that determine whether or not a message is deemed to be authenticated - did it pass SPF or DKIM and did it do so with a domain that aligns with the RFC5322.From domain. The currently valid states for those rules are pass, fail, temperror, and permerror. Policy and disposition (none, quarantine, reject) apply to decisions made based on the authentication results; they are not states for the authentication checks themselves. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
