On 12/11/2020 8:32 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
Perhaps:
none: not certain at all
quarantine: I believe I've got control of all my sending, but am
not 100% positive
reject: I have control of all my sending; if it doesn't pass
DMARC,
it's use of the domain is bogus.
But the problem case in our off-topic rabbit trail meanderings is that
people who "have control of all their sending" still don't necessarily
send mail of consistent seriousness nor do they have any control of
the paths by which that mail takes to get to the ultimate recipient.
There is a conflation of "control of emission" with "control of path".
A specification providing a choice of labels/settings needs to have a
shared understanding of what those labels mean.
It seems pretty clear that DMARC's p= hasn't had that, to date. There is
no consistency to the criteria used to set the label and, I suspect,
little consistency to how a receiver's filtering engine uses it.
We need to settle on text that resonates with a consistent
interpretation, by both domain owners and email receivers.
I've offered an approach that might permit reaching that community --
not just IETF -- rough consensus.
At this point we need to get suggested revisions for improvement. For
now, I don't have better text to suggest.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
dcroc...@gmail.com
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross
dave.crock...@redcross.org
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
