> -----Original Message----- > From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Gomez > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Next steps for RFC 7489 (DMARC) > > On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:59 PM [GMT+1=CET], Anne Bennett wrote: > > > > In practical and operational terms, the point of all this is to > > > allow filtering engines to make better decisions about > > > possibly-spoofed mail. > > > > ... and again, if those decisions result merely in rejecting a > > message, the user isn't involved, but as soon as those decisions can > > result in tagging a message for possible consideration by the user > > (probably via different display by the UI), we can't ignore the user. > > > > I agree that this isn't the place to delve deeply into user behaviour > > and UI design. But we shouldn't ignore the context of our work. > > +1 > > Email is for the users. p=quarantine is a USER PROBLEM. >
No, p=quarantine is a problem WE cause. All these experts and algorithms can't figure it out so we toss it in quarantine/junk/spam folder and then tell the user to figure it out. WE cause the problem. A person who used to be active in the email space once told me that the extent to which messages are placed in quarantine/junk/spam folders is a reflection of how well or poorly the systems evaluating the mail work. If it works really well then nothing should end up in quarantine/junk/spam folders. Mike _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
