Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none

Alessandro Vesely <> Mon, 18 January 2021 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA103A0100 for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:14:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xld5waiYsf9A for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:14:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B9DD3A00F7 for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:14:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1610997277; bh=qundZLjsMMCaqPHdhrNeM5CQ9YU22uO9S+G/NyNoRzI=; l=645; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=B3A7LJ2eUVcD552iPNxNr2zdJn27FV6jz06X5ZpWETH1z6LcQ+cNhJC8ls+fkrP9F rXPPsCRvML7oR9/3V8VipP8LqHiWvNdrVjfq58lk8GqpXUzakyCOuaeG/gn0wSFLvv aoE7yy8fZqVPovFDUhpBNJuU7o8yR301zPZBpgBEZRarOKEBmwaX7sglVCs1N
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] ([]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0C6.000000006005DE1D.000004E0; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:14:37 +0100
To: John R Levine <>, dmarc-ietf <>
References: <20210117213536.165266B2315E@ary.qy> <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:14:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy weaker than quarantine, yet better than none
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:14:41 -0000

On Mon 18/Jan/2021 19:56:21 +0100 John Levine wrote:

>> BTW, the current spec does not mean that an invalid p= implies the 
>> DMARC record is broken.  If it did, it wouldn't say to check rua= in 
>> that case.
> I know.  It would have been better if it didn't say that, but it's too 
> late to change it now.

I don't understand why you say it's too late.  This is not emailcore, 
and we don't risk getting back to proposed standard if we change too much.

We're just writing a proposed standard.  When choosing between a 
better spec and sticking to the existing one what criteria are we 
complying with?