Re: [dmarc-ietf] Priming the Pump for Discussion - Ratchets

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Steven M Jones  <[e-mail]> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 7/6/21 05:45, Todd Herr wrote:
>>
>> The theoretical goal of any domain owner that publishes a DMARC record
>> is to transition from an initial policy of p=none to a final one of
>> p=reject, because it is only at p=reject that DMARC's intended purpose
>> of preventing same-domain spoofing can be fully realized.
>
>While preventing impersonation of "high value" domains was the original
>impetus for DMARC, and preventing same-domain spoofing is a/the core
>benefit, it provides value for other use cases as well. For example, a
>domain that doesn't currently see much abuse and has several indirect
>mailflows (so "p=none"), but wants reporting as an "early warning
>system" in case they're targeted later.

Good point -- that's exactly why I use it, even though I have no intention
of ever publishing a policy other than p=none.

The reports are quite interesting.

R's,
John