Re: [dmarc-ietf] New proposed wording for p=quarantiine

Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org> Sat, 03 August 2019 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
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 E557D120043 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:06:23 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=aegee.org
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 ASkWthTK_CYU for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.aegee.org (mail.aegee.org [144.76.142.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CA5012002F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/x7326IFm017333; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=aegee.org; s=k4096; t=1564797979; i=dkim+MSA-tls@aegee.org; r=y; bh=piolxH7Npy+TC6nyP5hSculDaai3apNU7s8XlmWRboI=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=QIt2bz1mPPpeSzxo8nar5MRVfj6uHq21BoU4QwGsLxpOHnC4eydz+n/cZNO8AQXJX 3cznJynio7L39Zagudl0A6aNleOi1sSjWATEmJYVp/l2WojW5p2aZrWTA2YCMirNHL 0PN34UBVnXh/GfLwv9e9ECDgYwiTgD19tQ8wPq7rzFoD37Z1eltj4tdVMBJHeRZqjN aNNFZLQwAUrU4fd6gc47VYkzG3wZVT6PTdlWKUHKkwlKk9JH7gzi5Fd3BTbMgoP++S bgdDq63/sX6ljwdWuTMLqGXq3NYXNzIUhWnfGOhSNtUmeSekVz8Zf3fzWC7i9gq49j 5VC9ivnqhg425R193ehn48FldsMkbV7ZPTQ0iONlkHFS68NkE95TYesGbfhT9I3UAw ZkHt4/8cSRnlMuD0MckWnkwZi3lqTM1//N3caVnWSRD3dOiSh5sKKRxjCCMRFJ84Yp IZSSQaAsI8hy8tcNLpojXABKC/awgz0rU5oNJajmJ8zjAy4K8U4BjhC5mI7aU7Nlfz 5EIX1hb9RLS0b9Fb4KqHgQ6BXar+mfpxt8iS9b3EG2f1VZoylQq1ga6Z/nG6SRgOSy MvyJTitKOJh0u73HsxeeZGFBIp5AuzZJbIOxXMaMpHtppDoiyZTfEmcR86ocR2JmCC tzc2ez971K0CByxCnX8Tf1qk=
Authentication-Results: mail.aegee.org/x7326IFm017333; dkim=none
Received: from Tylan (87-118-146-153.ip.btc-net.bg [87.118.146.153]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.aegee.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7326IFm017333 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Aug 2019 02:06:19 GMT
Message-ID: <97b7d4320e77f9be84703677eba79686ec769f75.camel@aegee.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=94=D0=B8=D0=BB=D1=8F=D0=BD_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=9F=D0=B0=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=83=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 02:06:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20190802224917.331FB75B032@ary.qy>
References: <20190802224917.331FB75B032@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.33.90
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at mail.aegee.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/GS_LnJrcEQ457ashjjBipLdBokU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New proposed wording for p=quarantiine
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 02:06:24 -0000

Hello John,

the "... reject at SMTP level" is at least for messages, directed to an address, which does not support the concept of
quarantining.

Please propose what shall a site do, receiving a message, subject to quarantining, for an address, that does not support
quarantining.

Regards
  Dilyan

On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 18:49 -0400, John Levine wrote:
> In article <c586258d8480a4ff71d3c14bef10cf3aec66ab7d.camel@aegee.org>; you write:
> > Current wording for p=quarantine
> >      quarantine:  The Domain Owner wishes to have email that fails the
> >         DMARC mechanism check be treated by Mail Receivers as
> >         suspicious.  Depending on the capabilities of the Mail
> >         Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize
> >         with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious".
> > 
> > Amendment to the wording for p=quarantine:
> > 
> > … or reject at SMTP level. ...
> 
> No.  We really, really, don't like changes that aren't backward
> compatible.  You can do what you want but there is no chance I would
> ever make p=quarantine a signal to reject, and I think I am not
> atypical.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> PS: You can of course do whatever you want on your own system.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc