Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)
draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2013-12-06
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-kucherawy-dmarc-base
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                  M. Kucherawy, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Updates: 6591 (if approved)                               E. Zwicky, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Yahoo!
Expires: June 9, 2014                                   December 6, 2013

 Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)
                     draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-02

Abstract

   This memo presents a proposal for a scalable mechanism by which a
   mail sending organization can express, using the Domain Name System,
   domain-level policies and preferences for message validation,
   disposition, and reporting, and a mail receiving organization can use
   those policies and preferences to improve mail handling.

   The email ecosystem currently lacks a cohesive mechanism through
   which email senders and receivers can make use of multiple
   authentication protocols to establish reliable domain identifiers,
   communicate policies about those identifiers, and report about mail
   using those identifiers.  This lack of cohesion has several effects:
   receivers have difficulty providing feedback to senders about
   authentication, senders therefore have difficulty evaluating their
   authentication deployments, and as a result neither is able to make
   effective use of existing authentication technology

   The enclosed proposal is not intended to introduce mechanisms that
   provide elevated delivery privilege of authenticated email.  The
   proposal presents a mechanism for policy distribution that enables a
   continuum of increasingly strict handling of messages that fail
   multiple authentication checks, from no action, through altered
   delivery, up to message rejection.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference

Kucherawy & Zwicky        Expires June 9, 2014                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    DMARC                    December 2013

   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Kucherawy & Zwicky        Expires June 9, 2014                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                    DMARC                    December 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.2.  Anti-Phishing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  High-Level Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Sender/Domain Owner Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.3.  Mail Reciever Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.4.  Out Of Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Terminology and Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.2.  Organizational Domain  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   4.  Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  DMARC Policy Record  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.1.  DMARC URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.2.  General Record Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.3.  Formal Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  Policy Enforcement Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     6.1.  Policy Fallback Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   7.  DMARC Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.1.  Verifying External Destinations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     7.2.  Aggregate Reports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Show full document text