OK, I see what you're getting at. It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject; pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".
As for your proposal: On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palau...@aegee.org> wrote: > And then, for p=none or any equivalent form of it, there is no need or > established practice for mungling, while for > p=reject; pct=0, or any equivalent form of it, there is mungling. > > This is the current specification. I proposed on this regard in fact two > things: > - specifying that p=quarantine; pct=0 (email from 10th May to dmarc@ietf) > the MLM does mungling > - abolishing policy quarantine > > That is: p=reject; pct=0 gets almost the same as p=none, except that there > is recommendatiton for MLM to mungle From:. > I'm a little worried about this, but maybe it's just The Way Of Things. We had intended the publication of a DMARC policy to be a message from the ADMD owning a domain name to any ADMD receiving mail from it about how to handle unauthenticated or unaligned messages. It's actually morphed on its own into also being a message to any MLM that might be in the way to take particular rewriting actions. I wonder if the standards track version of DMARC should explicitly take this into account. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
