Re: [dmarc-ietf] New proposed wording for p=quarantiine

Hello,

to the idea to amend the existing definition of p=:

  quarantine:  The Domain Owner wishes to have email that fails the
         DMARC mechanism check be treated by Mail Receivers as
         suspicious.  Depending on the capabilities of the Mail
         Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize
         with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious".

the text “

The Domain Owner wishes in addition, that the sender of messages failing DMARC are notified about the suspicious
handling with an appropriate rejection message.  Senders not willing to be notified that their message is suspicious,
shall use the NOTIFY=NEVER service extension.

In the past, Domain Owner could express as wish either to reject or to quarantine.  Considering that from the options:
only reject; only qurantine; and quarantine, while notifying the sender about the suspicious handling of the message;
nobody will choose only to quarantine, the interpretation of what the Domain Owner wishes by publishing quarantine was
changed to include the rejection component.”

so far two voices were against.  The reasoning against the amendment is that writing what the domain owner wants is just
its preference, not anything binding, and the current definition is sufficient.

My motivation in favour the amendment is, that currently nobody has the practice to quarantine messages and inform the
sender of the special delivery status at the same time.   Spelling more precisely what the domain owner wants will
suggest the implementations to implement precisely that preference.

With other words, the sole reason why a receiving host does not notify the sender for quarintined message might be, that
the receiving site has not come to this idea.  The additional text removes the cause.

If there was a common practice by now to deliver as junk and reject with appropriate text at SMTP level, then the
amendment would have been less necessary.

Regards
  Дилян

On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 08:13 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:02 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > Policy is an indication of sender preference, not a directive the receiver must follow.  I think the definition is fine.  If the sender prefers failing messages be quarantined, then they should use that policy.  They won't get what they want in all cases and that's fine.
> 
> This matches my understanding.
> 
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc