On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:08 PM [GMT+1=CET], MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:59 PM [GMT+1=CET], Anne Bennett wrote: > > > > > ... 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. Yes, but a problem that ultimately the user gets directly planted before his eyes, and which the user has to roll up his sleeves to deal with as well/bad as he can possibly manage. Translation: p=quarantine has vey high support costs. As I understand it, in the beginning of the coming up with DMARC, p=quarantine was designed as a stepping stone in the journey towards p=reject. In that view, the high support costs of p=quarantine were tolerable because p=quarantine was meant to be a temporary situation for the sender domain Owner. Now that p=reject is a dead end for all practical purposes, p=quarantine has less and less utility. Only p=none is safe to use unless you do not have real people as users. We must work hard to find a solution which makes p=reject a viable setting which can be reliably relied on. Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
