Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

Note that I asked Two questions. Your answer appears directed to the second
question. The answer to the first question appears fairly clear to me.
Administrators of a system can restrict or delete a user account. It really
is as simple as that. So in that respect the answer is that ultimately an
individual account users do not supersede the wishes/policy of the domain
owners representatives.

The second question is a bit more interesting, but ultimately leads one
back to the first question. As far as being long settled, I would think
that NSF AUP is an interesting precedent.

Michael Hammer

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 12/8/2020 10:50 AM, Dotzero wrote:
> > And here we get to some of the crucial unresolved questions involving
> > email: "Does the wishes of a user of an account at a domain supercede
> > the policies of the domain owner/administrator of a domain?"
>
> It's not only not crucial, it's entirely resolved, and always had been,
> in terms of real-world practice. The view that it hasn't been is frankly
> an arrogance of author domain owners.
>
> Author domain owners do not have a relationship with receivers or
> recipients, so their policies have no enforcement potential. Receivers
> and recipients are completely independent.  They do not 'override' the
> domain owner policies.  Rather, they apply their own policies.  Always
> have.
>
> This is why the language in DMARC would be far more constructive to
> remove any hint of attempting to direct receiver or recipient behavior,
> and instead merely reflect the domain owner's assessment of message
> validity, along the lines of the language I offered.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> [e-mail]
> 408.329.0791
>
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Cross
> [e-mail]
>
>