On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:01 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> On Wed 11/Apr/2018 04:35:54 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:48:48 PM Brandon Long wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > I'd have to rethink if p=none was really worth publishing if that > happened. I > > guess we'd need p=none-really then. > > Given that From: rewriting is the de-facto standard, this WG should > publish an > RFC about that, including recommendations and caveats about how to do it. > > Its Security Considerations, for example, should mention cases like, say: > > From: The POTUS via phishing-attempt <obsc...@phisherman.example.com> > X-Original-From: The POTUS <po...@whitehouse.gov> > > > For a personal opinion, I don't know what is the purpose of having GG > rewrite > From:'s of a given domain. Perhaps, it is to let users participate to > groups > without revealing their real addresses to spammers. That sounds > legitimate to > me... > Do you mean, that user's don't understand why some are rewritten and some aren't? That's definitely true, and an interesting question as to whether Groups should always rewrite. Brandon
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
