> On 1 Dec 2020, at 23:17, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > > We would like to close this ticket by Dec 15, two weeks from now, so short > trenchant comments are welcome. > > #39 proposes that we remove p=quarantine. I propose we leave it in, even if > it > is not very useful, because trying to remove it would be too confusing.
p=quarantine is quite useful, particularly for those folks who are trying to get to a p=reject state. In practice, senders who publish p=none don’t find all of the indirect mail flows as some mailing lists do nothing to transform the 5322.from address for a p=none policy. Senders have found that when they switch from p=none to p=quarantine pct=0 they regularly find mail that was not failing for a p=none. p=quarantine should stay in, especially if the goal is to encourage senders to publish a p=reject. It’s a valuable step in the deployment process. laura -- Having an Email Crisis? We can help! 800 823-9674 Laura Atkins Word to the Wise [email protected] (650) 437-0741 Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
