Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 12/10/20 6:01 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:03 PM Dave Crocker <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/10/2020 4:46 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>>     to quibble with the "*unauthorized use*"  situation. This
>>     situation devolves into use-as-imagined vs. use-as-really-used
>>     when one considers various intermediary scenarios.
>
>     (to respond to the content...)
>
>     So, the driving issue is that it's characterizing problematic
>     usage; use that did not achieve a DMARC pass.
>
>     And, yeah, that doesn't mean the use was unauthorized, given the
>     other possible explanations for failure.
>
>     So, without suggesting a label, I'd describe this factor as "how
>     serious is a failure to get a DMARC pass"?  If that's the right
>     semantic, what's a reasonable label to use?  If it's not the right
>     semantic, what is?
>
> I think that is much closer to the right semantic but highlights a 
> problem that the mail coming from a particular domain probably doesn't 
> rate a single broad-brush characterization of seriousness.
>
I think this all should be driven by "what are you asking me to do?". 
p=quarantine is asking for a specific thing, but it doesn't seem to mean 
literally what it's asking for. it seems to mean "i'm not comfortable 
with this except in certain situations that i can't enumerate with any 
accuracy". maybe p=quarantine is my "only if you trust the intermediary" 
state I was talking about the other day.

Mike