Post by jabom on Dec 28, 2023 6:56:53 GMT
We’ll explore the reasons behind this modification and its implications for email security. Note: The document is still a draft and things may alter in the future. The “pct” Tag: An Earlier Attempt An earlier version of the DMARC protocol, documented in RFC , introduced the “pct” tag. This tag allowed domain owners to specify the percentage of messages subject to a stricter DMARC policy, such as moving from ‘none’ to ‘quarantine’ or ‘quarantine’ to ‘reject.‘ to provide a gradual transition.
Allowing domain owners to ease into more Job Function Email List stringent email policies. Challenges with the “pct” Tag However, operational experience revealed that the “pct” tag presented various challenges. It was often inaccurately applied, except when the value was either “ ” or “ ” (the default). The default value, “ ,” required no special processing on the part of the Mail Receiver, making it a straightforward choice for many. On the other hand, a “pct” value of “ ” became associated with deviations from standard handling, primarily and mailbox providers who rewrote the RFC From header to avoid DMARC failures downstream. Custom Actions and Valuable Insights.
Oddly enough, this unintended use of “pct= ” was valuable for the email community. When intermediaries rewrote headers with “pct= ,” domain owners could gain insights into how much of their email traffic passed through intermediaries that didn’t alter the RFC . While this comparison required effort, it was a priceless source of information for domain owners. Knowing the extent of mail subject to potential DMARC failure due to the absence of RFC from header rewriting by intermediaries, domain owners could make informed decisions.
Allowing domain owners to ease into more Job Function Email List stringent email policies. Challenges with the “pct” Tag However, operational experience revealed that the “pct” tag presented various challenges. It was often inaccurately applied, except when the value was either “ ” or “ ” (the default). The default value, “ ,” required no special processing on the part of the Mail Receiver, making it a straightforward choice for many. On the other hand, a “pct” value of “ ” became associated with deviations from standard handling, primarily and mailbox providers who rewrote the RFC From header to avoid DMARC failures downstream. Custom Actions and Valuable Insights.
Oddly enough, this unintended use of “pct= ” was valuable for the email community. When intermediaries rewrote headers with “pct= ,” domain owners could gain insights into how much of their email traffic passed through intermediaries that didn’t alter the RFC . While this comparison required effort, it was a priceless source of information for domain owners. Knowing the extent of mail subject to potential DMARC failure due to the absence of RFC from header rewriting by intermediaries, domain owners could make informed decisions.