Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Hector Santos <> Wed, 12 June 2019 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BCA120123 for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=C7UDCT67; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=eWnuKapc
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yRslxdFjHOV for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B948212011C for <>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=998; t=1560350501;; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=wTZPsOHORlmE5FETJAnDDI1AvvA=; b=C7UDCT673rL+NFr9xSxK/ZajOf5CrIoaXYa9xeJOL1iz7IfDdqZ9t8nmtZ/6+K /Gr/aWnc8XDhYrqCe2tnl+E710ckIg7jGu7KeLmdCyCLiu/8gobaLUj1Zsi498Rg YFUU6tUh3UAXUvnNHsLdKzzp0wwCC4wqZtD5CM3f/AHcE=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.8) for; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:41:41 -0400
Authentication-Results:; dkim=pass header.s=tms1;
Received: from ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.8) with ESMTP id 1142940765.1.5076; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:41:41 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1;; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=998; t=1560350304; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=nNvhk9p 2DqI5zDM38XXAA/xwf1Pg3f+mLnpoJEWemU0=; b=eWnuKapck+UKrhbP0m+pbNw FzuNYXxQt9E8ZwwLd8FzVwBuwyX93KBf0+xOBB5bFVakrnb1s9EKY5/+eE7/3XmQ GQ1QPq6WM+kkBLijqqA0OxnEUJALwIjhB2QRglb8Df0HAX+7ZYwoqyxHcwSJqvhT X3bRIJ9fdhk44kbuNjro=
Received: by (Wildcat! SMTP Router v8.0.454.8) for; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:38:24 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Wildcat! SMTP v8.0.454.8) with ESMTP id 2715159520.9.44848; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:38:23 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:41:44 -0400
From: Hector Santos <>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy 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, 12 Jun 2019 14:41:49 -0000

On 6/12/2019 9:49 AM, Dotzero wrote:
>     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.

Sure you can. I explained how it can be explored today!

Right now, today, it can explored with an existing protocol just was 
recently made historic:

The status change was done because this protocol was part of the 
SenderID vs SPF experiment and SenderID lost.  SPF was made a standard 
track protocol.   It does not mean we could not consider leveraging 
the exist SUBMITTER code for other purposes and its a right fit for a 
high overhead payload technology in DMARC. I will suggest it can offer 
a high optimization payoff:

   - Eliminate payload reception overhead, yet still
   - Provide DMARC reporting and disposition override capabilities.

I don't think its an "Horrible Idea."  I think its a great idea. :)