What is the operational experience with domains that stop at o=quarantine?
On Sun, Apr 9, 2023, 5:28 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 2:07 PM Douglas Foster < > dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As an evaluator, what I can accept is that "Some intermediaries could be >> allowed to make some changes y do want unrestricto messages, if I have a >> list of intermediaries that should be allowed, sufficient reason to trust >> what they propose to do, and a reliable way to identify them." I do >> exceptions all the time. But lists don't want to make special >> arrangements with evaluators, and don't want to make special arrangements >> with senders. Apparently, lists don't even want to do rigorous >> verification to ensure that a post comes from the purported subscriber. >> But theted access to evaluators that filter based on simplistic triggers >> like "p=reject". >> > > I see two issues with this line of thinking: > > (1) "I do exceptions all the time" works when you are a relatively small > operator with a relatively small user base for whom you need to configure > exceptions. You can get away with doing those manually. What size staff > do you imagine GMail would need to hire to investigate and configure manual > exceptions on a timely basis for each time one of its billion-plus users > wants to subscribe to a mailing list? The notion screams for automation, > and automation screams for something deterministic or at least close to it > upon which to base automated decisions. That last bit is what's missing > here. > > (2) "But lists don't want to make special arrangements with evaluators, > and don't want to make special arrangements with senders". They might, if > there existed a reliable way to do so. How would you accomplish this in a > way that prevents an attacker from making you think he's a list, and then > sending whatever he wants from inside that trust boundary? > > I think evaluators SHOULD NOT block on simplistic rules like p=reject, >> because a correct p=reject block requires follow-on work to block >> everything else from that malicious source, and should not be done >> incorrectly. They should review, either with pre-quarantine or >> post-audit, which is what I do. I have no problem with >> disposition=quarantine, even for p=none. I am obligated to protect my >> users, while also obligated to provide my users the messages they need, not >> the ones that are technically optimal I don't understand why Big Tech and >> its A.I. tools cannot be deployed to do the best thing. >> > > I'm pretty sure they could, for their own use cases. But what about the > operators in between, who aren't Big Tech and don't have AI tools? A > standard has to work for everyone. > > -MSK, participating > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
