On Wed 11/Apr/2018 04:35:54 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:48:48 PM Brandon Long wrote: >> >> Well, obviously there is some difference in handling of p=quarantine and >> p=none ;) >> >> I guess the question is, in terms of forwarders, should they handle those >> differently or not. I'm not sure how many are p=none vs p=quarantine vs no >> dmarc (I could look at our mail flow for some numbers, but some others on >> the list may have better numbers), but if a lot are at p=none, things will >> be yucky if it changes. Ie, right now, gmail.com/hotmail.com/outlook.com >> are all p=none, so changing Groups or mailman for p=none will affect a lot >> of folks. > > I'd have to rethink if p=none was really worth publishing if that happened. > I > guess we'd need p=none-really then.
Given that From: rewriting is the de-facto standard, this WG should publish an RFC about that, including recommendations and caveats about how to do it. Its Security Considerations, for example, should mention cases like, say: From: The POTUS via phishing-attempt <obsc...@phisherman.example.com> X-Original-From: The POTUS <po...@whitehouse.gov> For a personal opinion, I don't know what is the purpose of having GG rewrite From:'s of a given domain. Perhaps, it is to let users participate to groups without revealing their real addresses to spammers. That sounds legitimate to me... Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc