On 17 Sep 2020, at 20:59, Jesse Thompson <jesse.thompson=40wisc....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > On 9/17/20 2:11 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >> Wouldn’t it be nice if you could ask for MLMs to transform, just using a >> DMARC policy, even p=none, > > It is possible via p=quarantine pct=0. > > I think it makes sense to consider codifying beyond this defacto standard > hack. Isn't this part of DMARCbis? It was discussed, anyway. Which ones > are active? https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/report/1
These tickets seem to be relevant: #22 (Perverse incentives to use p!=none & pct=0): https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/22 #73 (Need decision on importance of From domain): https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/73 #63 (Make p=none with no reporting URI invalid—Closed): https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/63 I did not realise that this “hack” had become widespread. I agree that it should be codified, or else p=none explicitly needs to support it (and in that case reporting must remain optional). I can’t speak to the pct parameter, because my sites are too small to really benefit from it. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
