Re: [dmarc-discuss] "p=none" vs. "p=quarantine; pct=0"

[Mark Fletcher via dmarc-discuss]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:06 AM Jonathan Kamens via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

> I see people behaving badly here in both directions. In my opinion,
> servers that do message forwarding should rewrite headers for DMARC
> compliance whenever there is a DMARC policy, not just when the policy is
> *p=quarantine* or *p=reject*. And on the other end, given that the
> servers that do forwarding *aren't* behaving that way, nobody should be
> using *p=none* in their policy; they should instead use *p=quarantine;
> pct=0* to force their headers to be rewritten during forwarding.
>
We only re-write From lines for quarantine or reject, not none. We want to
re-write as few From lines as possible; the user experience is degraded
when we have to re-write From lines.

Mark
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)

Re: [dmarc-discuss] FBL via DMARC?

[Mark Fletcher via dmarc-discuss]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM, John Levine via dmarc-discuss <
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote:

> In article <864f7119-9912-7143-7cc4-b2c10ca1f...@delegated.net> you write:
> >Has there been any discussion about using DMARC to configure spam
> complaint feedback loops?
>
> No, for reasons already mentioned.
>
> But see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-herkula-oneclick/
>
> Ooh, interesting. I hadn't seen that; thanks for the pointer.



> This is likely to be an RFC soon, and is apparently already
> implemented at some large webmail providers.  You can put a new header
> in your message which encourages recipient systems to do a one-click
> non-interactive unsubscribe when someone reports the message as junk.
>
>
(Apologies for the non dmarc-discuss topic) We currently treat FBL reports
as unsubscribe requests. We do the unsubscribe and send an email saying
'hey, if you made a mistake, here's a link to re-subscribe'. What we've
found, unfortunately, is that the rate of accidental spam button clicking
is higher than we expected. For example, with at least one webmail service,
the Spam button is right next to the Delete button. People are peeved when
we unsub them; it's not a good user experience and we're looking at
different algorithms to guard against the occasional accidental spam button
press. Which somewhat lessens the efficacy of the whole enterprise. What
would be great is if this RFC could have some language discussing having a
confirmation dialog to prevent these accidental mistakes from happening.

Thanks,
Mark
___
dmarc-discuss mailing list
dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss

NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms 
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)