p=quarantine with pct=0 is useful to test DMARC with mailing list/groups which perform "From" rewrite based on DMARC policy. It's safe, because it actually works like "none" but it causes From rewrites, because it's still considered as "quarantine".
I would never recommend to use "quarantine" without pct=0, because it can mask serious deliverability problems. 12.06.2019 0:00, Дилян Палаузов пишет: > Dear all, > > when DMARC passes, there is no difference between p=reject and p=quarantine. > > When DMARC fails validation, this means extra work for humans. This work can > be done by the sending or by the receiving > organization. > > With p=quaratine, the sending organization (domain owner) indicates, that the > extra work is supposed to be done by the > receiving organization. So for the senders it is just cheaper (in terms of > less work) to publish p=quarantine. > > With p=reject, the sending organization (domain owner) indicates, that the > extra work has to be performed by the sending > server, which might be the domain owner or some suspects. > > However, it is ultimately up to the receiving site to decide, whether it > wants to accept this extra work. If it does > not accept the extra work, it just handles quarantine as reject. This does > not violate the DMARC specitification. > > Do you have a story, why one wants to publish p=quaratnine? What is the use > case for it? It just makes emails less > reliable, as they end as Junk and this is very similar to discarding the > emails. > > Imagine a mailing lists, where the recipient of an email address expands to > several mailboxes on different domains. An > incoming email fails DMARC validation before being distributed over the ML. > The domain owner for that mail origin has > published p=quarantine, this email cannot be delivered in the Junk folder of > the recipient, because the mailing list > itself does not have a junk folder. > > How about, deleting policy Quarantine and instead rephrasing policy Reject: > > It is up to the receiving server if it rejects messages failing DMARC, or > accepts and delivers them as Junk. > > (This does not change the protocol, just the wording) > > Regards > Дилян > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc -- Vladimir Dubrovin @Mail.Ru _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
