Hi,
Le 15/07/2023 à 12:22, Douglas Foster a écrit :
[...]
Track 2: Exception Request
[...]
Track 2 benefits:
[...]
- Elimination of From munging is potentially available to all
participants, even those from p=reject domains
This important word here is "potentially". In practice, only an
insignificant part of this potential can be achieved, because your plan
heavily relies on non-automatable human work, and on end users being
able to weight into their providers' policies.
Thus for all practical purposes, "conditional munging" is equivalent to
plain munging.
Therefore I propose Track 3:
1) We undo existing munging.
2) We inform end users that, if they do not receive messages from
certain senders (especially those senders whose addresses were
previously munged), they can regain them by switching their subscription
mode to "digests", at least temporarily while their mailbox provider
fixes their DMARC handling.
3) Whenever we get bounces, we configure our software to forcibly switch
the offending users (I mean the receivers) to "digests". We inform the
impacted users that they can try resetting their subscription mode to
plain messages after a few months, in case their provider fixed their
handling in between.
4) We publicize our rules widely, so mailbox providers know how to avoid
inconveniencing their users.
Track 3 benefits:
- fully automatable
- doesn't break the semantics of conversations (digests correctly embed
the messages instead of improperly claiming authorship)
- gives mailbox providers an incentive to move to a more sophisticated
DMARC handling.
- doesn't rely on the sending side to fix their practices, as the
consensus here seems to be that it will never happen.
Cheers,
Baptiste
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
