Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #47 (Removal of "pct" tag)

+1 With Mr Levine's line of thinking.

I also agree with keeping pct= tag.

tim

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:16 PM Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:17 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <vesely@tana.it> 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
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #47 (Removal of "pct" tag) - With Interim Notes