On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:38 AM Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> wrote:
> > On 12 Jun 2019, at 14:28, Hector Santos <hsantos=40isdg....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > On 6/11/2019 5:00 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote: > > > How about, deleting policy Quarantine and instead rephrasing policy Reject: > > It is up to the receiving server if it rejects messages failing DMARC, or > accepts and delivers them as Junk. > > (This does not change the protocol, just the wording) > > > I think that is how it was thought it would be handled. Don't take > "rejection" literally, in fact, it can be a discard concept as well. This > is all about local policy. A receiver has the option, based on Local Policy > and the implementation software to offer: > > (o) Reject with 55x before DATA state > > > Given that the 5322.from is crucial for DMARC, and the 5322.from is > transmitted after DATA, how can you evaluate DMARC before DATA? > > You can't evaluate DMARC before DATA. On the other hand, evaluating DMARC is not a MUST for SMTP email. It is at best a SHOULD and more likely a MAY. Speaking as an original participant in the dmarc.org team, we recognized that there was no way to mandate participation in the DMARC worldview and that it would get implemented based on perceived value by both sending domains and mailbox providers. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
