On Thursday, March 14, 2024 11:27:03 AM EDT Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 14/Mar/2024 15:09:37 +0100 Todd Herr wrote: > > [...] > > > > In the ticket, I propose the following replacement text: > > > > ================================================== > > Because DMARC relies on SPF [[RFC7208]] and DKIM [[RFC6376], in order to > > take full advantage of DMARC, a Domain Owner MUST first ensure that either > > SPF or DKIM authentication are properly configured, and SHOULD ensure that > > both are. > > > > To configure SPF for DMARC, the Domain Owner MUST choose a domain to use > > as > > the RFC5321.MailFrom domain (i.e., the Return-Path domain) for its mail > > that aligns with the Author Domain, and then publish an SPF policy in DNS > > for that domain. The SPF record MUST be constructed at a minimum to ensure > > an SPF pass verdict for all known sources of mail for the RFC5321.MailFrom > > domain. > > ================================================== > > Wouldn't you at least add "trusted", "ensure an SPF pass verdict for all > known, trusted sources of mail"? To avoid mandating an insecure behavior. > Consider: > > _ Hey dude, they're spoofing your domain with a tide of phishing. > > _ How come? > > _ You have an include:phisherman.example in your SPF. Remove it. > > _ No, since they occasionally send a true message from us, the RFC says I > MUST keep it. > > > [...] > > > > Further notes on the threads that gave rise to this ticket: > > - I do not believe that recommending the use of the ? modifier in an > > SPF > > record configured for DMARC is appropriate, since as I understand the > > ? > > modifier, the result produced is not "pass", but rather "neutral", > > which is > > the same as "none". Therefore, an SPF record using ? would not produce > > an > > aligned pass to be used with DMARC. I am willing to be convinced that > > I'm > > wrong here. > > The drastic solution for those who unwittingly chose a non-filtering > provider is to remove the SPF record altogether. The compromise is to use > the neutral qualifier. If we mention that —which I think we should— we > should also add that DKIM is necessary for such mail flows.
I think that's issue 135, not this one. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
