On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:17 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > It appears that Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> said: > >On Thu 03/Jun/2021 05:45:33 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> I don't understand what "demeaning a domain's policy" means. > > > >I meant to say that p=quarantine; pct=0 is to be considered a strict > policy to > >all effects. Saying so should prevent reasoning something like "Oh, they > said > >quarantine, but since pct=0 it is somewhat faked, so I'll skip X", where > X > >could be rewriting From:, displaying a BIMI image, record aggregate data, > or > >any other action that might depend on the policy. That is to say pct=0 > does > >not alter the value of p=, otherwise testing becomes a nightmare. > > If we agree that's what we mean, that's what we should say, e.g., add > something > like this: > > Senders may use pct=0 to signal an intention to apply a stricter > DMARC policy in the future, and to request receivers that do special > processing based on DMARC policy to do that processing. Examples of > special processing might include mailing list software rewriting > addresses in From headers. >
As long as we get the wording right, I agree with your line of thinking John. Again, we don't have insight as to the extent that receivers will honor the request. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
