On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 9:29 AM Benny Lyne Amorsen <benny+use...@amorsen.dk> wrote:
> Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> writes: > > > p: Domain Owner Assessment Policy (plain-text; REQUIRED for policy > > records). Indicates the severity of concern the domain owner has, for > > mail using its domain but not passing DMARC validation. Policy > > applies to the domain queried and to subdomains, unless subdomain > > policy is explicitly described using the "sp" tag. This tag is > > mandatory for policy records only, but not for third-party reporting > > records (see Section 7.1). Possible values are as follows: > > > > none: The Domain Owner offers no expression of concern. > > > > quarantine: The Domain Owner considers such mail to be suspicious. It > > is possible the mail is valid, although the failure creates a > > significant concern. > > > > reject: The Domain Owner considers all such failures to be a clear > > indication that the use of the domain name is not valid. See Section > > 10.3 for some discussion of SMTP rejection methods and their > > implications. > > Perhaps, in retrospect, the p= should have had something like the > following values: > > none > untrustworthy > invalid > > p= mistakenly chose to use the language of receiver actions to describe > what is actually domain-owner judgements. This is unfortunate, since it > risks making the sender believe that it is possible to dictate receiver > policy. > > p= DID NOT mistakenly choose to use the language of receiver actions. p= represents the domain-owner request to the receiver as to the disposition of messages which fail to validate. Any reading of "concern" is supposition on the part of yourself or other self appointed interpreters of the mind of the domain-owner or administrator. The vocabulary is perfectly fine as it accurately describes the request being made. It makes no attempt to read the underlying reasoning behind the request because, surprisingly, there is likely to be a wide range of underlying reasoning behind why various domains publish the policies they publish. This is an interoperability standard, not a seance. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
