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
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to