I'm not recommending p=quarantine for that exact reason. People will go in their spam folder and then report back to you phishes as if it was emails you sent. You are better with p=reject. However it is fine to do p=quarantine as a transition method to p=reject, especially when not too many people send forensic reports.
On 12/3/12 6:39 AM, "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote: >>One thing mail receivers could possibly implement in the future is to >>give the *addressed recipient* the option to send the forensic report >>to the spoofed sender ... > >Sorry, but this is a dreadful idea. > >I have always understood that one of the main goals of dmarc is to >avoid showing phishes to recipients at all. If you show them the >phishes and ask "well, what do you think?" that defeats that goal. > >Also, from everything I've ever seen, users can't reliably tell >phishes from real mail. That's why they work. > >I think it's worth a sentence or two in the dmarc spec noting that >asking for forensic reports in domains with individual users may get >you copies of mail that may present privacy issues. But don't try to >solve it in the spec. _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
