Actually, do you have any more specifics for me to take a look? Best case would be the recipient and message-id of something that ended up in the spam label.
Off list would be fine. Brandon On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote: > I'll take a look. > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Roland Turner < > roland.tur...@trustsphere.com> wrote: > >> John Payne wrote: >> >> >> Presumably this just indicates that the rewrite rule that Brandon >> described for Google Groups >> >> is not in use by IETF's mailing lists? >> >> >> >> Tradeoffs in every direction... >> > >> > I wasn't expecting behavior changes for ietf mail. >> > >> > To clarify, with p=none I had no complaints. With p=quarantine, pct=0 I >> have complaints from gmail users. >> > >> > I believe this points to gmail perhaps not looking at the pct... >> >> Apologies, wrote before thinking it through. What should have happened is >> that the failures identified in aggregate reports should have gone down as >> Google Groups would rewrite because of it, but that no changes in receiver >> behaviour should occur. >> >> I agree, this looks like a Gmail bug. >> >> Brandon, are you able to explore this with your colleagues? >> >> - Roland > > >
_______________________________________________ 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)
