On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:48:48 PM Brandon Long wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:54 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Well, obviously there is some difference in handling of p=quarantine and > p=none ;) > > I guess the question is, in terms of forwarders, should they handle those > differently or not. I'm not sure how many are p=none vs p=quarantine vs no > dmarc (I could look at our mail flow for some numbers, but some others on > the list may have better numbers), but if a lot are at p=none, things will > be yucky if it changes. Ie, right now, gmail.com/hotmail.com/outlook.com > are all p=none, so changing Groups or mailman for p=none will affect a lot > of folks. > > Brandon
I'd have to rethink if p=none was really worth publishing if that happened. I guess we'd need p=none-really then. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
