On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Al Iverson wrote:
If you treat quarantine differently than none, you’re sending me misleading data in the reports you send (if of course
Sorry, but that is just wrong. I publish p=none because that is my policy.It's not wrong from my perspective. It's exactly what I see in practice from ISPs and companies.
I'm not opposed to having some way to say pretend that I'm publishing a more restrictive policy, but I'd be rather annoyed if p=none were hijacked so there's no way to say my mail comes from different places and that's OK.
I don't care what the details are. Maybe we can publish an update that formalizes the pct=0 hack, or add p=pseudoquarantine.
Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
