+1 With Mr Levine's line of thinking. I also agree with keeping pct= tag.
tim On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:16 PM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:17 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: >> >On Thu 03/Jun/2021 05:45:33 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> I don't understand what "demeaning a domain's policy" means. >> > >> >I meant to say that p=quarantine; pct=0 is to be considered a strict >> policy to >> >all effects. Saying so should prevent reasoning something like "Oh, >> they said >> >quarantine, but since pct=0 it is somewhat faked, so I'll skip X", where >> X >> >could be rewriting From:, displaying a BIMI image, record aggregate >> data, or >> >any other action that might depend on the policy. That is to say pct=0 >> does >> >not alter the value of p=, otherwise testing becomes a nightmare. >> >> If we agree that's what we mean, that's what we should say, e.g., add >> something >> like this: >> >> Senders may use pct=0 to signal an intention to apply a stricter >> DMARC policy in the future, and to request receivers that do special >> processing based on DMARC policy to do that processing. Examples of >> special processing might include mailing list software rewriting >> addresses in From headers. >> > > As long as we get the wording right, I agree with your line of thinking > John. Again, we don't have insight as to the extent that receivers will > honor the request. > > Michael Hammer > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
