IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 6E49B1200E3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 zzx6TAA9jE_l for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC7212004F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id g135so6668260wme.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WOlei1/8fO0f5dQzlNSRKNB2Z3Bp9Q/eu+nvMgzhLfw=; b=iz+TTLo7xRVcRsF3yc4BaZ6LGWJYzkg3Zx5j6cdC+edq00q2G+YEfwnKXXYPl8kjZB xSw2l/MJvOKqtkpFO95IBflaFNXlj9JBTNVg/kmIfTCkIUaPCMot67fTiFNLcSKYZr/H Txj0AT7FhnmQFLD5tHlGTmQIP0pdUC8FQdTHxTMs/F/HbF/w288paxj4tlD2baA5AS0i R6RBPSImjuCYGmvONxER+Umgr73pdB4/+tjXyA8LLrx2EZaBmDKE0NaIw7tuRC7GPBm7 WT1xbfS0hjsz7jv9GCj4MNBfzupS0juFhHyjaIElXBn9o7fszP44w39T6uVtWMDA6WT1 TxSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WOlei1/8fO0f5dQzlNSRKNB2Z3Bp9Q/eu+nvMgzhLfw=; b=H20A29lsy+yXBV1HNWygsxSyH7dRHlBVGtBolPwih9qN6/JAb5gCtXsiU5hyxB57IL KnHacXwowE5Q4uY83xDa9X86q++AIBduy/vlfUksn/vFeEgnzF8H86rTE47NoEkR9NVT bBPJqLkaRxWRjAv+qf3nkKvIlQ5/BFR4EvjiKtd/RlUfp0Ty+WTdOUJZKEEozBu4rl6N HgjyhXUWHKCKOeUGShV0PAVwZ9TJJCRhuFEDq6kEyopaMLn6Rtcg62sdQF4sqhkjHgmW rNsyOJiMlqQD5GBGR94bCBg6L6XqWNYOVHXeuMkdH4v/qEe4qBwVPEavKnxhiVeVHW8W XOgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmz3ubpUji02r6H99kSGuyNipj5TEqfKgqk1HJyz6kf6QfQC/m dfKvIy9f6BNjOtdJoeCeB/rIZFyYM1bZ4960B2w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyHefUyJnRlzSx1bMnOGFq0WB28eRxykyUJkm++ono589VC36x76DbEFHiwNryKJfhUXPWJq/j1vdoU2Nnr5c4=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cc02:: with SMTP id h2mr21820112wmb.13.1560347409485; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a8ac130a671f5bcd1bf9f09781325e84a9f1fda6.camel@aegee.org> <5D00FDFA.8040303@isdg.net> <4B7278AE-7AFC-4183-A879-644D4F9AAB69@wordtothewise.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B7278AE-7AFC-4183-A879-644D4F9AAB69@wordtothewise.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:49:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYeZ2J4pW2=kKRxfXES4V=7A9-P+E+VdW-DuB6_xgBMwLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Cc: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011941a058b20b1b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5gb9iz0WaCWKrfvfEoMgIchr2Hk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy 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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:50:13 -0000

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:38 AM Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
wrote:

>
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 14:28, Hector Santos <hsantos=40isdg.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2019 5:00 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
>
>
> How about, deleting policy Quarantine and instead rephrasing policy Reject:
>
> It is up to the receiving server if it rejects messages failing DMARC, or
> accepts and delivers them as Junk.
>
> (This does not change the protocol, just the wording)
>
>
> I think that is how it was thought it would be handled.  Don't take
> "rejection" literally, in fact, it can be a discard concept as well.  This
> is all about local policy. A receiver has the option, based on Local Policy
> and the implementation software to offer:
>
>  (o) Reject with 55x before DATA state
>
>
> Given that the 5322.from is crucial for DMARC, and the 5322.from is
> transmitted after DATA, how can you evaluate DMARC before DATA?
>
>
You can't evaluate DMARC before DATA. On the other hand, evaluating DMARC
is not a MUST for SMTP email. It is at best a SHOULD and more likely a MAY.
Speaking as an original participant in the dmarc.org team, we recognized
that there was no way to mandate participation in the DMARC worldview and
that it would get implemented based on perceived value by both sending
domains and mailbox providers.

Michael Hammer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email