Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01.txt

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:14:00 -0700

FYI, this handles some of the feedback received to date.  It may or may not
handle things that John Levine and Scott Kitterman submitted in the last
couple of days, but I wanted to make sure we got as much as we could done
before the embargo settled in.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01.txt
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>, Elizabeth Zwicky <
[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Murray S. Kucherawy and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:        draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base
Revision:        01
Title:           Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting and
Conformance (DMARC)
Creation date:   2013-07-15
Group:           Individual Submission
Number of pages: 77
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-01

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.

The IETF Secretariat