Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 12/11/2020 9:37 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
> aligned is not authorized by the domain owner and may be discarded or rejected by the recipient.
> Naah.
>
> p=reject: all mail sent from this domain should be aligned in a DMARC
> compliant way. We believe that unaligned mail is from unauthorized
> senders so we ask receivers to reject it, even though that might mean
> some of our authorized senders' mail is rejected too.


As soon as this specification text, here, contains language about how 
this information is to be used, should be used, or could be used, it 
crosses over into creating confusion about expectations of receiver 
handling.

It encourages misguided language such as the receiver 'overriding' 
sender policy.  The sender has no policies about receiver behavior, 
because there is no relationship between them. Using milder language 
here doesn't help, because readers typically do not read like legal or 
technical scholars.

DMARC provides information, not direction.

The spec already contains misguided perspective by talking about 
'policy' records and, even worse, "policy enforcement considerations".

If the document must contain language about receiver choices in message 
disposition, move it to an overtly non-normative discussion section that 
legitimately covers a wide range of things that receivers do or don't do 
(cast as things they might or might not do.)  And make sure none of the 
language hints at sender 'policy', overrides, or the like.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[e-mail]
408.329.0791

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
[e-mail]