Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Fri, 11 December 2020 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124693A0D32 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:21:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVvZnBYohVVF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704B93A0D21 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:21:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (unknown [37.228.231.27]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 338829F149 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 09:21:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1607707279; bh=GTEqo/ptLSb2bNyHI0bu2bSFdhDxCwz1ZYGcU67mBS0=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=HoVfUu+JgRqZWV6TDJS4oXa9nyt++p3C2dvR/Km+yi2dMU5fm2N7rPu/uqC7Bltg7 sCmLk3jLh6gkGHjg3vENBnKufh+irRssxasMaVMw5F9RpZ+cCZgtzS2TE9e89bWGVg kAOCmOyoZVzYZHwVOV27PmjGnp0rAG0puzrPz498=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B6CBEF0D-C4E3-4F1A-B8E4-74A50C156105"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:21:17 +0000
References: <923de33f-3707-facf-389e-371f6ee64008@gmail.com> <16B0B820-7080-4937-8642-3A6B84B441AA@gmail.com> <c1a8c519-8d2e-f287-48d1-00ac74d22b49@gmail.com> <CABuGu1rCHRofp+M7uQXhEYuTLJiL94nwY-9icwQrNiLiA=anaQ@mail.gmail.com> <1f5b3e62-e6f4-0bc2-221e-362667536727@gmail.com> <CABuGu1pC3FyMKi-6UZJTNUvGXF9u5qX84fUm=OzKvYcO-gRYsQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e0ff141-2842-606c-91e9-e588edab7ef1@gmail.com> <CABuGu1ovOH8swVwNGqQXUN4PG_P+H1HMDdKw8x6ZiSRhpJCCVA@mail.gmail.com> <80e6ebf8-b66f-a1f5-7ddd-1aed55c3be0d@gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <80e6ebf8-b66f-a1f5-7ddd-1aed55c3be0d@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1AC986FF-507B-4917-9C6D-D84E9337FC7A@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/-fRUD3DB-hRngmx4AdNKbZy2TVI>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:21:22 -0000


> On 11 Dec 2020, at 17:07, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/11/2020 8:32 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
>> 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".
> 
> A specification providing a choice of labels/settings needs to have a shared understanding of what those labels mean.  
> 
> It seems pretty clear that DMARC's p= hasn't had that, to date.  There is no consistency to the criteria used to set the label and, I suspect, little consistency to how a receiver's filtering engine uses it.
> 
> We need to settle on text that resonates with a consistent interpretation, by both domain owners and email receivers.
> 
> I've offered an approach that might permit reaching that community -- not just IETF -- rough consensus.  
> 
> At this point we need to get suggested revisions for improvement. For now, I don't have better text to suggest.
> 

There’s probably better phrasing than ‘DMARC compliant’ here, but here’s my stab at describing the processes. note, this is very close to the language I use with clients.

p=none: mail sent by authorized users of this domain may or may not be aligned in a DMARC compliant way.

p=quarantine: mail sent by authorized users of this domain should be aligned in a DMARC compliant way. Mail that is unaligned may or may not be legitimate messages from this organization.

p=reject: all mail sent from this domain should be aligned in a DMARC compliant way. Mail that is unaligned is not authorized by the domain owner and may be discarded or rejected by the recipient. 

laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog