On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
>> *I filed issue 22 after observing a discussion today on another list:*
>> Pursuant to an email thread on the mailop list, we may want to consider
>> how (or if) to do something about the ways that people have developed
>> different processing handling for p=none vs. p!=none. Here's the example:
>> Does anyone know of any negative side effects of setting a DMARC policy:
>> p=quarantine pct=0 ?
>> Is it equivalent to: p=none ?
>> I'm curious because I want to trigger Google Groups (and maybe others
>> list forwarders?) to rewrite the From in a DMARC compliant fashion *prior*
>> to changing the domain's DMARC policy... to avoid the "leap of faith" that
>> p=none's monitoring mode was supposed to alleviate.
>> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/22#ticket)
[looks like your email worked]


> Trying a reply from my dmarc protected address...
> What are you proposing we do?  Specify what handling should be done more
> specifically in that case?
> Brandon

It may not be palatable, but I would consider some sort of recommendation
along the lines of "SHOULD NOT" in the to-be-revised standards-track spec
for DMARC to discourage special case processing of p=none.

dmarc mailing list

Reply via email to