On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 12:15 PM Todd Herr <todd= [email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 1:49 PM Wei Chuang <weihaw= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> This proposes a third flag to control the DMARC RFC9989 alignment >> validation behavior. By default it is always applied at each hop >> corresponding to some DKIM2 signature, however if the "unaligned" flag is >> published, then no DMARC alignment validation is applied on. Alignment >> implies "ownership" of the message, as the payload From address is updated >> to be an aligned sender. When "unaligned" is set on the i=1 DKIM2 >> signature, this may be used when the message originated elsewhere as a >> "DKIM1" message but entered into the DKIM2 system at the i=1 DKIM2 signer, >> and the i=1 signer declines to take "ownership" of that message. >> >> >> > Unless and until there's an updated RFC 9989 published that acknowledges > DKIM2 as an Authenticated Identifier, there is no world where DMARC > alignment validation is applied corresponding to a DKIM2 signature. > > Prior to such an update, anyone can do any alignment checks they wish, but > those alignment checks are not DMARC alignment checks. > Agreed that there needs to be a DMARC document update to include DKIM2 in its authentication. I'm trying to figure out what that document update means. Specifically, this proposal attempts to retain the default RFC9989 settings whenever possible. -Wei
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
