Policy is an indication of sender preference, not a directive the receiver must follow. I think the definition is fine. If the sender prefers failing messages be quarantined, then they should use that policy. They won't get what they want in all cases and that's fine.
Scott K On August 3, 2019 3:45:24 AM UTC, "Дилян Палаузов" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello John, > >I am really saying, that some addresses, like majordomo@ , which send >answer to each received and accepted message, have >no capability to perform a form of “quarantine”. > >It does not matter, whether this is an edge case. Once it is clarified >how to act in this case, the same procedure can >be applied to mailboxes, where users want to have no Spam folder. So >mailboxes, which capability to quarantine messages >is disabled and for users, who do not want to receive messages with >SUSPICIOUS in the subject line or have any >corresponding headers. Or for users who statistically never open their >Spam folder. > >So it is a matter of clarifying what the domain owner wishes by >publishing p=quarantine to happen to messages failing >DMARC validation, when the receiving address, voluntary or not >voluntary, does not offer quarantining capability. > >I have no problem, if the text "... reject at SMTP level" is not >attached to the quarantine definition, but is implied >by reading other passages. Then it does not make a difference. > >Regards > Дилян > > > > >On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 23:05 -0400, John Levine wrote: >> In article <[email protected]> >you write: >> > 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. >> >> It should do what RFC 7489 says: >> >> ... Depending on the capabilities of the Mail >> Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", >"scrutinize >> with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious". >> >> Are you really saying your mail system has no spam folders, no way to >> adjust spam filtering, and no way to mark messages as suspicious >> (e.g., add "PROBABLY SPAM" to the subject line)? >> >> If the problem is that it's an address that goes to some software >> robot rather than being seen by people, do whatever you want. That's >> an edge case for DMARC. >> >> R's, >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
