Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=quarantine

[Steven M Jones <[e-mail]>]

On 12/1/20 6:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>> On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote:
>>> I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to
>>> provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to
>>> enable p=reject.
>> p=none, p=quarantine, and the pct= option were all included so that
>> organizations could set policies according to their own risk/reward
>> evaluation, including changes to those evaluations over time.
> Do you think there was a shared understanding of how p=quarantine
> would be implemented? Put the mail in a spam folder? Put it in some
> separate place that you can check? (Mimecast does that with some
> dubious mail) Put it in the inbox with a warning label?

Not in the sense of, "All Receivers should do at least X for 
quarantine." Rather that the Domain Owner is requesting whatever the 
Receiver implements between rejecting the message and putting it in the 
inbox, and is willing to apply. Discussions of this nature usually 
included a recognition - if not a blunt statement - that the Receiver 
will do whatever they deem best in whatever situation was under 
consideration.

So even if the use case of a small Receiver without a quarantine 
function wasn't explicitly mentioned on this or that occasion, they 
would be covered under the, uhm, /force majeure/ clause of Receiver agency.

That "clause" came up a _lot_ ...

--S.