On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:26 PM Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2020 6:01 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > I think that is much closer to the right semantic but highlights a > > problem that the mail coming from a particular domain probably doesn't > > rate a single broad-brush characterization of seriousness. > > I've assumed the none, quarantine, reject choices are meant to indicate > just how certain the domain owner is that the mail is problematic. > > 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". --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
