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

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

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.