[Bug 1539384] Re: Non-blocking DMARC mitigations should also be done for p=none

Mark Sapiro mark at msapiro.net
Thu Dec 29 15:02:39 EST 2016

To elaborate on Barry's comment, RFC7849 defines DMARC and the policies
and reporting requests that domain managers can publish to implement
DMARC and the things that receivers of mail can do to implement the
published policies and reporting requests of From: domains. In this
context, Mailman is not a receiver, but rather is a mediator as defined
in section 5.3 of RFC5598 and discussed in section 5.2 of RFC7960.

I understand Jakob's issue and I understand that the implementation of
dmarc_none_moderation_action doesn't really solve that because it relies
on the cooperation of multiple third party mailing list operators to
enable it even though they have a disincentive to do so. It is precisely
because of this that that implementation is not being carried forward to
Mailman 3.

The underlying issue is that the original design of DMARC did not take
into account the role of mediators in mail delivery. RFC7960 is an
attempt to clarify the issues and suggest mitigations that mediators can
apply now and in the future, but none of this requires or even suggests
that a mediator should treat a p=none domain differently from a "no
policy" domain for purposes of applying DMARC mitigations.

I firmly believe Jakob's issue is with DMARC and not with Mailman and it
is not up to Mailman to fix it.

You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mailman
Coders, which is subscribed to GNU Mailman.

  Non-blocking DMARC mitigations should also be done for p=none

To manage notifications about this bug go to:

More information about the Mailman-coders mailing list