Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, I see what you're getting at..
> 
> It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject; pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".

It's semi-explicitly defined that way in the RFC, isn't it?

Cheers,
  Steve

> 
> As for your proposal:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org> wrote:
> And then, for p=none or any equivalent form of it, there is no need or established practice for mungling, while for
> p=reject; pct=0, or any equivalent form of it, there is mungling.
> 
> This is the current specification.  I proposed on this regard in fact two things:
> - specifying that p=quarantine; pct=0 (email from 10th May to dmarc@ietf) the MLM does mungling
> - abolishing policy quarantine
> 
> That is: p=reject; pct=0 gets almost the same as p=none, except that there is recommendatiton for MLM to mungle From:.
> 
> I'm a little worried about this, but maybe it's just The Way Of Things.  We had intended the publication of a DMARC policy to be a message from the ADMD owning a domain name to any ADMD receiving mail from it about how to handle unauthenticated or unaligned messages.  It's actually morphed on its own into also being a message to any MLM that might be in the way to take particular rewriting actions.  I wonder if the standards track version of DMARC should explicitly take this into account..
> 
> -MSK
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc