On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 6:46 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On July 31, 2019 7:11:49 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Tue 30/Jul/2019 15:56:16 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > >> The published policy (that's why I suggest dmarc.policy). > > > > > >Published policy can be ambiguous. Say you have p=quarantine; sp=none. > > The > >MTA chooses which to apply based on the domains (publishing and From:). > > So it > >makes sense to write the /applied/ published policy. > > > >I'm not good at designing A-R stanzas, as you know. However, since > >dmarc is > >already the policy method, why not write dns.policy, since that is > >where it > >comes from? > > The problem with dns as a ptype is that virtually all this is from DNS.. I > haven't had a chance to study your proposal in detail or coordinate with the > other designated experts, but speaking for myself my initial thought is that > dns is not a good ptype name.
Moreover, given the D in DMARC literally means "Domain-Based", I think this nomenclature would be potentially confusing and unfortunate. > This is specific to DMARC, so I think it's appropriate to say so. There is that too. Stan > >> I'm not sure if disposition belongs in A-R. If it does, it'd be a > >local > >> policy override, probably policy.dmarc as described now in RFC 8616.. > > > >You mean RFC 7489, don't you? I see nothing about A-R in RFC 8616. > > Sorry. I meant RFC 8601. > > >Would it be possible to add a result of "quarantine"? Having > >dmarc=fail and > >dns.policy=quarantine leaves a good deal of interpretation to the MDA. > >If one > >could write dmarc=quarantine, a simple string search or regular > >expression > >would do. > > That's a great example of why dns.policy= isn't the way to go. It's too > generic. If it's dmarc.policy=quarantine, there's no ambiguity. You can't put > quarantine as the DMARC result, because that's not what it is. The DMARC > result is pass/fail/none. > > >Currently, I use a comment too. > > > >Since we're at it, besides the spam folder, is it fine if the MDA sets > >IMAP > >keyword $Junk[*] or $Phishing[†] or would we dare registering a new > >one? > > It's outside my area of expertise, so I don't have a strong opinion, but I'd > be inclined not to register a new one. I think the average user can be > confused by too many terms for things that to them are the same. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
