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

Dotzero <> Thu, 03 June 2021 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206AD3A1E78 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n8xvM0hlN-Ei for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018813A1E75 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a7so4080035qvf.11 for <>; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 16:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LKY20CEpcenx8zryWQ4a087fEzrZ1Lh4pzElBLeKnOY=; b=RykCFtRfDxdNFdLaPE50WN6mokDDmRhlULR988ClMY372I1R6fRpWhRp1Dyy6q1wDo ntUP7M6n1GZewV2583NP6xVJUIhd3V3Rwd+RLF5J37s1XSbyjyUd1UCqFnrYcj/dW3Hq BvWb3u1EWrJW/lNnaGpJ3qjN1dDTTDlT5vvEKvMsSKJj9GtdtDkfobMVP3/VcH9joPtu nLz2hppjpMxzpumwCzgcyXnztU4gs1O+epY6meHZXbInmh3JZ9vec6XWI25ZFuETlIuq JMFU2xFrozU7+IuxRVjD6y5CCanEU8FMKIwfha35UFgtnedh8vAgcLoMYHwd8DVqsvnF 96Dg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=LKY20CEpcenx8zryWQ4a087fEzrZ1Lh4pzElBLeKnOY=; b=KyBlfH6AfcnMCygZr1ljEnC4EWyGLFpa9NAATIVf7F9OdVDajxqcHM3Y5lqZMh7AYU P6tyE35FhKHBipxWj84aPQoGqjOqwjHzOILTQyDGo2hxBV4sf20OLb4HOho+MXtbK8Mk gyIl2GeKgBkUrbpZjTLLMf92LCCXiYfGeGQ3LtWc2lmY9G79Lr+21QtDmlOvVlqW5r+S 2pBIU/HdAezFZMPRDF2RJ4esYUWA3mCAHAUEgF4fwrWeNYo38EM/1OpY5aVhBYvWE+fW SyDLh3Bq0/OXwdpwIib2ZiyqBXjatU9UCkIR5gpssXKbYs2msmzI4Sqh1OdpQeb4Mt1Y ybMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531KDHeVWHVRn/34C4gCcc3i+Gk6SPx7qlRRy0pKfp/0PPIjdx1h Wzbj4/rKc5ZMOxBp6ZQ2aFN5SRFzbM02VO2eBoINKCkBBzE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5X5rzmzqluusblTG9MC01e6cigy7ebxUQkuCCgJf8w9tUtkGMWIEY2XxfO1NGaXbSkeLKHb5dq9SkuO3Uq3o=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:eda5:: with SMTP id h5mr1818410qvr.26.1622762198293; Thu, 03 Jun 2021 16:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20210603221737.C8146B6B7BB@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20210603221737.C8146B6B7BB@ary.qy>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 19:16:26 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006261eb05c3e4c454"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #47 (Removal of "pct" tag) - With Interim Notes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 23:16:45 -0000

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:17 PM John Levine <> wrote:

> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <> 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