Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=quarantine

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 02 December 2020 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BCA3A0799 for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id at0AdhbvlxK0 for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DFAD3A0773 for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o9so347404pfd.10 for <>; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:41:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=EfKB2KjpUk6/zBYtesGqxmt4Bs1LQCbjDSyMfEMGmf4=; b=PyJuNgBdKGHsNXrhWqONdAnrc4coL07eIlb2nG8ntVSDPMJqcAVZl1dx+v1OUgbfC5 mWlFjF/+3tzaIsR7S77PGC2970ceSt08UuE8bZPFnJYS4vcmTOABJG1MnkebWGWK5PR/ hYNlbQXzm7V25mwueNryxoigSav/Rns5vjJJJznhDHobUe1tQ/Z3Rd+2tO5MjaT5M43c uHZvJH+0NXsJ8GOwCbHQ9UarUeRK7hFOmtXVMOciyWlVwI2yq1VbYcTn3WfZ0zrKJoIw EhwFLws9tSRbt0G831U9BRA9nJax7g3LX+w8M0afQdR2imHbN0iyreC5vAk1mrAjmGWX Pg2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=EfKB2KjpUk6/zBYtesGqxmt4Bs1LQCbjDSyMfEMGmf4=; b=XfFOC/9YuNsh49ago2S3ZCpTn4Ef1q/tu1lIHb1R2Q7NSNtq1cJdamInWLHbPy76nR mQhuPzTU4CGgApvmREQ6+hzj3oDbFWiYamy1dHgE1tSgu+9yGDAq50YoruNgJoW6qWxR GCNyGhDFo6iyXU71Sh7LtxBHhjI7AEQ5BbZ7os3IKJwSQgDOF/LCOMxZEDy7Ip24JvY8 RjOJOSrnlg0hFbDn87DA0UV2DkH5S/DqW6rZHT/LfEe8K78ZXCYB2UjbZXpb6Acx1tou RHnrC8nJ3E6D+85XZxvWh57L6WDOkOjoMvBfQ3h4Zt3i/MBldBQNyHF2ufMnhwhq0jNK LyQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531I9J+Ajy1UbehmBb3TGT2geeHSOHlda2c7f3S97ZLhDUxZ+dvi rI3CdtdS0G2nqFIy1loc87E7ndBwR5s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwllpQngKIZoPibVRNPHwDPdNX3xv1KUbVjF/RE05Mjco0taTtAa+S/rScr3k8rwDOlWnHb2g==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:445c:: with SMTP id t28mr786147pgk.373.1606880488359; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w131sm374254pfd.14.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 19:41:27 -0800 (PST)
To: Steven M Jones <>,
References: <20201202021651.E8EE128C576A@ary.qy> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 19:41:26 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=quarantine
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 03:41:31 -0000

On 12/1/2020 7:03 PM, Steven M Jones wrote:
> Rather that the Domain Owner is requesting whatever the Receiver 
> implements between rejecting the message and putting it in the inbox, 
> and is willing to apply. 

Yes, but...

The premise that an author domain owner can, in any way, direct the 
message disposition decisions of a receiving system is simply false. 
It's false to a level of silliness, if one adequately considers the 
complete independence of the receiver from the domain owner.

The domain owner can, perhaps, express something about the owner's own 
concerns for mail that fails dmarc, but that's different from saying 
anything about the receiver's decisions about how to respond to those 
expressed concerns.

That is, the language expressing the semantics should be changed to be, 
in a sense, egocentric.  How do I, the domain owner feel about (assess) 
the meaning of a DMARC failure?

I'd frankly recommend changing the labels for these expressions, but 
expect folk to argue that there is too much installed base and 
operational history.  After all, we left "Mail From" in place, even 
after finally realizing it means "Error Return", which is completely 


Dave Crocker

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross