On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:46 AM Dilyan Palauzov
<Dilyan(_dot_)Palauzov(_at_)aegee(_dot_)org>
wrote:
Hello Kurt,
somebody wrote somewhere (I can search for this statement if necesssary),
that p=quarantine; pct=0; is the way to test, whether the DMARC setup is
working correctly and get failure reports.
There have been some claims to this effect, but it depends entirely on
implementation-dependent (non-specified) behaviour.
So the difference between p=quarantine; pct=0; and p=none is that in the
former case a verification of a presumably ready setup is done. During this
verification, I think, From: (@akamai.com) should be changed by MLMs, as
if pct wasn’t zero, in order to be sure that things will continue to run
smoothly once pct is increased.
With other words, pct being present, zero or absent has no impact on the
non-aggregate failure reports per message.
You are correct regarding the non-effect of pct for reporting. Citing the
spec (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489) again: (6.6.4) 'regardless of
whether or not the "pct" tag is present, the Mail Receiver MUST include all
relevant message data in any reports produced." It does not say anything
about other manipulations of the header fields.
There is no such thing as “level”: quarantine is not one level less that
reject.
Yes there is such a concept and quarantine is one level less than reject.
Continuing the citation above:
If email is subject to the DMARC policy of "quarantine", the Mail Receiver
SHOULD quarantine the message. If the email is not subject to the
"quarantine" policy (due to the "pct" tag), the Mail Receiver SHOULD apply
local message classification as normal.
If email is subject to the DMARC policy of "reject", the Mail Receiver
SHOULD reject the message (see Section 10.3). If the email is not subject
to the "reject" policy (due to the "pct" tag), the Mail Receiver SHOULD
treat the email as though the "quarantine" policy applies. This behavior
allows Domain Owners to experiment with progressively stronger policies
without relaxing existing policy.
The spec does not use the term "level", but I don't think that it is
misplaced to use that term since it does refer to "progressively stronger
policies".
--Kurt
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp