Hello John, the "... reject at SMTP level" is at least for messages, directed to an address, which does not support the concept of quarantining.
Please propose what shall a site do, receiving a message, subject to quarantining, for an address, that does not support quarantining. Regards Dilyan On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 18:49 -0400, John Levine wrote: > In article <[email protected]> you > write: > > Current wording for p=quarantine > > quarantine: The Domain Owner wishes to have email that fails the > > DMARC mechanism check be treated by Mail Receivers as > > suspicious. Depending on the capabilities of the Mail > > Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize > > with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious". > > > > Amendment to the wording for p=quarantine: > > > > … or reject at SMTP level. ... > > No. We really, really, don't like changes that aren't backward > compatible. You can do what you want but there is no chance I would > ever make p=quarantine a signal to reject, and I think I am not > atypical. > > R's, > John > > PS: You can of course do whatever you want on your own system. > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
