> On 3 Dec 2020, at 06:03, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2 Dec 2020, at 1:47, Laura Atkins wrote: > >> p=quarantine is quite useful, particularly for those folks who are trying to >> get to a p=reject state. >> >> In practice, senders who publish p=none don’t find all of the indirect mail >> flows as some mailing lists do nothing to transform the 5322.from address >> for a p=none policy. Senders have found that when they switch from p=none to >> p=quarantine pct=0 they regularly find mail that was not failing for a >> p=none. > > I’m really confused by this. It sounds like the 5322.from address rewriting > is creating additional errors that didn’t exist beforehand, and that’s the > opposite of the intended purpose. Isn’t the purpose of rewriting the > 5322.from address to change the domain to that of the mediator, which should > redirect reporting to the mediator rather than the original sender?
What I am trying to say is that as I understand it from the folks who professionally deploy DMARC, they regularly use p=quarantine pct=0 as part of the deployment process. There are DMARC failures that go undetected in a p=none situation but that is detected in a p=quarantine pct=0 situation. My understanding was this was related to indirect flows through mailing lists and how mailing lists are handling the header transformation but it’s possible I got that piece incorrect. p=quarantine is valuable for other reasons as well, and I think it should be kept. laura -- Having an Email Crisis? We can help! 800 823-9674 Laura Atkins Word to the Wise [email protected] (650) 437-0741 Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
