Dave Crocker writes: > On 6/13/2014 12:46 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Well, for Author Domains publishing "p=reject", we can certainly > > confuse the issue dramatically. Change the protocol to advocate > > "silent discard" > > Question to the group: Does silent discard help? Or rather, do we have > any indication that noisy "p=reject" does or can hurt?
We have the latter: mailing list deactivations and unsubscriptions. This effect can be mitigated but not eliminated because the same domains that agree to use "p=reject" refuse to provide informative DSNs, or even consistent status codes. That said, the more I think about this, the less I'm inclined to think it's important. There are multiple mitigations (ie, both heuristic recognition of "p=reject" bounces and mitigations based on avoiding DMARC rejects in the first place). These mitigations will be largely effective in newer versions of Mailman (and I assume other MLMs), and for older versions non-delivery is probably much the bigger problem, now that MLM developers and support understand why the deactivations and unsubscriptions occurred. I withdraw the suggestion of recommending silent discard for the purpose of protecting mailing list subscribers. Steve _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
