Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 12/11/2020 8:32 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>
>     Perhaps:
>          none: not certain at all
>          quarantine: I believe I've got control of all my sending, but am
>     not 100% positive
>          reject: I have control of all my sending; if it doesn't pass
>     DMARC,
>     it's use of the domain is bogus.
>
>
> But the problem case in our off-topic rabbit trail meanderings is that 
> people who "have control of all their sending" still don't necessarily 
> send mail of consistent seriousness nor do they have any control of 
> the paths by which that mail takes to get to the ultimate recipient. 
> There is a conflation of "control of emission" with "control of path".


A specification providing a choice of labels/settings needs to have a 
shared understanding of what those labels mean.

It seems pretty clear that DMARC's p= hasn't had that, to date. There is 
no consistency to the criteria used to set the label and, I suspect, 
little consistency to how a receiver's filtering engine uses it.

We need to settle on text that resonates with a consistent 
interpretation, by both domain owners and email receivers.

I've offered an approach that might permit reaching that community -- 
not just IETF -- rough consensus.

At this point we need to get suggested revisions for improvement. For 
now, I don't have better text to suggest.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
[e-mail]
408.329.0791

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