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

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:17 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It appears that Alessandro Vesely  <[e-mail]> 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