On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote: > >> *I filed issue 22 after observing a discussion today on another list:* >> >> Pursuant to an email thread on the mailop list, we may want to consider >> how (or if) to do something about the ways that people have developed >> different processing handling for p=none vs. p!=none. Here's the example: >> >> Does anyone know of any negative side effects of setting a DMARC policy: >> p=quarantine pct=0 ? >> >> Is it equivalent to: p=none ? >> >> I'm curious because I want to trigger Google Groups (and maybe others >> list forwarders?) to rewrite the From in a DMARC compliant fashion *prior* >> to changing the domain's DMARC policy... to avoid the "leap of faith" that >> p=none's monitoring mode was supposed to alleviate. >> >> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/22#ticket) >> > [looks like your email worked] > > Trying a reply from my dmarc protected address... > What are you proposing we do? Specify what handling should be done more > specifically in that case? > Brandon It may not be palatable, but I would consider some sort of recommendation along the lines of "SHOULD NOT" in the to-be-revised standards-track spec for DMARC to discourage special case processing of p=none. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
