Re: [dmarc-ietf] Reporting DMARC policy in A-R header fields

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 6:46 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On July 31, 2019 7:11:49 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> >On Tue 30/Jul/2019 15:56:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> >> The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy).
> >
> >
> >Published policy can be ambiguous. Say you have p=quarantine; sp=none.
> > The
> >MTA chooses which to apply based on the domains (publishing and From:).
> > So it
> >makes sense to write the /applied/ published policy.
> >
> >I'm not good at designing A-R stanzas, as you know. However, since
> >dmarc is
> >already the policy method, why not write dns.policy, since that is
> >where it
> >comes from?
> 
> The problem with dns as a ptype is that virtually all this is from DNS. I haven't had a chance to study your proposal in detail or coordinate with the other designated experts, but speaking for myself my initial thought is that dns is not a good ptype name.

Moreover, given the D in DMARC literally means "Domain-Based", I think this nomenclature would be potentially confusing and unfortunate.

> This is specific to DMARC, so I think it's appropriate to say so.

There is that too.

Stan

> >> I'm not sure if disposition belongs in A-R. If it does, it'd be a
> >local
> >> policy override, probably policy.dmarc as described now in RFC 8616.
> >
> >You mean RFC 7489, don't you? I see nothing about A-R in RFC 8616.
> 
> Sorry. I meant RFC 8601.
> 
> >Would it be possible to add a result of "quarantine"? Having
> >dmarc=fail and
> >dns.policy=quarantine leaves a good deal of interpretation to the MDA. 
> >If one
> >could write dmarc=quarantine, a simple string search or regular
> >expression
> >would do.
> 
> That's a great example of why dns.policy= isn't the way to go. It's too generic. If it's dmarc.policy=quarantine, there's no ambiguity. You can't put quarantine as the DMARC result, because that's not what it is. The DMARC result is pass/fail/none.
> 
> >Currently, I use a comment too.
> >
> >Since we're at it, besides the spam folder, is it fine if the MDA sets
> >IMAP
> >keyword $Junk[*] or $Phishing[†] or would we dare registering a new
> >one?
> 
> It's outside my area of expertise, so I don't have a strong opinion, but I'd be inclined not to register a new one. I think the average user can be confused by too many terms for things that to them are the same.
> 
> Scott K
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> 