replied offlist
On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Brandon Long via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org<mailto:dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org>> wrote: 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<mailto:bl...@google.com>> wrote: I'll take a look. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Roland Turner <roland.tur...@trustsphere.com<mailto: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<mailto: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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
