Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 12/12/2020 10:51 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I agree with you, which is why I said "believe" and "request".

Except that that runs contrary to my point, rather than being compatible 
with it.

Any an all discussion of receiver /use/ of DMARC needs to be moved to a 
separate section and it needs to refrain from any linguistic form that 
characterizes that use as being in response to domain owner desires.


>
> If we're going to have any description of p=none at all it needs to 
> emphasize the point that it's telling you that they consider the 
> messages unusually unimportant.  This appears to be at odds with what 
> some DMARC users believe.

It isn't about the 'importance' of the messages.  It is about the domain 
owner's view of the implication of the success or failure of DMARC 
validation.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
[e-mail]
408.329.0791

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