On 12/1/20 6:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article <[email protected]> you write:
On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote:
I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to
provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to
enable p=reject.
p=none, p=quarantine, and the pct= option were all included so that
organizations could set policies according to their own risk/reward
evaluation, including changes to those evaluations over time.
Do you think there was a shared understanding of how p=quarantine
would be implemented? Put the mail in a spam folder? Put it in some
separate place that you can check? (Mimecast does that with some
dubious mail) Put it in the inbox with a warning label?
Not in the sense of, "All Receivers should do at least X for
quarantine." Rather that the Domain Owner is requesting whatever the
Receiver implements between rejecting the message and putting it in the
inbox, and is willing to apply. Discussions of this nature usually
included a recognition - if not a blunt statement - that the Receiver
will do whatever they deem best in whatever situation was under
consideration.
So even if the use case of a small Receiver without a quarantine
function wasn't explicitly mentioned on this or that occasion, they
would be covered under the, uhm, /force majeure/ clause of Receiver agency.
That "clause" came up a _lot_ ...
--S.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
