Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:45 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > Based on this discussion, it seems evident that p=reject should include > language about in-transit modifications which are outside the control of > the source domain, and consequently outside the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

Based on this discussion, it seems evident that p=reject should include language about in-transit modifications which are outside the control of the source domain, and consequently outside the ability of DMARC to guide recipients.Extending from that, I thought it would be helpful to specify

[dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Dec 13 06:00:05 2020

Count| Bytes | Who ++--- 35 (18.8%) | 267386 (16.8%) | Michael Thomas 29 (15.6%) | 150513 ( 9.5%) | John Levine 23 (12.4%) | 120702 ( 7.6%) | Alessandro Vesely 22 (11.8%) | 182969 (11.5%) | Dave Crocker 16 ( 8.6%) | 123376 ( 7.8%) | Murray