On Thu 17/Sep/2020 21:11:42 +0200 Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > > Wouldn’t it be nice if you could ask for MLMs to transform, just using a > DMARC policy, even p=none, so that you could test with a live environment > containing MLMs that work around DMARC policy? Or you could ask for *no* > transform, even for p=quarantine or p=reject, so that your DMARC policy can > be used to legitimately restrict usage to directly-sent email?
It may be practical to place the asking in the message header, rather than in the DMARC record. That way, senders can specify their wish on a per-message basis, presumably based on message recipients. Note that a request to transform can include information about how to reliably undo the transformation, thereby verifying the original DKIM signature as described in dkim-transform[*]. Possible strategies that senders might use could be similar to those for putting weak signatures[†]. Best Ale -- [*] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform [†] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-dkim-conditional-04#section-4.1 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
