The zeal with which the status quo is being defended suggests that disposition reporting is pretty valuable to legitimate sending domains. However, this situation complicates any effort to argue that such information is useless and harmless for malicious domains. Such a fine distinction has not yet been justified.
I can fully endorse Murray's position that alignment reporting is beneficial, even when the sending domain is malicious. However, it is also off-topic. My focus is on disposition reporting, not alignment reporting. Bottom line: The perceived risk of disposition reporting will differ with each person, and therefore with each reporting domain. The specification would be improved by providing a way for skeptical domain owners to redact information that they do not wish to disclose. Currently, the options are to (a) not report at all, or (b) report ambiguous and slightly misleading information such as "dispostion=quarantine, overridereason=other". A better option would be to have options to state "dispositioin=not specified, overridereason=not specified". On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:21 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri 22/Jan/2021 23:40:18 +0100 John Levine wrote: > > > > As someone said, the better the spammers align their stuff, the better > > we can filter it. > > > 100% agreed. > > > > Close this, please. > > > Please don't. That such a doubt can cross the minds even of knowledgeable > people is a real issue. At a minimum, the paragraph I cited[*] should be > restored. A crispy further clarification is welcome. > > Best > Ale > -- > > [*] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HRAR3hSdckw3mU_Gebh8vcYOjm4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
