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

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 14:47 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 AD1FE3A1435 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:47:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WL4Z6tEDNHXV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (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 CC2DE3A1434 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id es6so778205qvb.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 06:47:20 -0800 (PST)
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=Cv2K6IwFrDOb3u+331cqvpPaHgsJ1Hx0ndghSjvFSGY=; b=kuqabQECw+arthsbR+YWNAaysJi07Y+dU6Mm2rBd8inhZBzPNuCbYkvAwwUaSpx+3H cMjXZ9FDZF4nw9nJyyLBMpVDYd59kOVoqicP5zlEchpGMR3AmWP1Q2laCMgKz3+Qsphs 5lCun+OKyFUP2DHqmH4+6JdD3fDMIOwZ3DYHWTDCbzBgSPKThH2CTC9OpYBeTTL1n+RP m22/s6c0bWbbVpWa/elwk4EBz49DBKBB+zcIxQD6iYF06HwQX5LoaDp+DV7Gw8/Ftf0A 8oT2tXAwPaCRyT8jdxXGn94ydjhzH2VMcbHHPr5m/fGbw8wvrQzQna7EieWHIqbaTyJU OKOg==
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=Cv2K6IwFrDOb3u+331cqvpPaHgsJ1Hx0ndghSjvFSGY=; b=neLFKUpCZQptsDwaSwU49vz1CpC9mA0y7n0i7dAcJvtB39P7DE+A3dWDi0zNyIWe5a HSnnXgpg0fstd2Eu6+AmW+uXbnbWDb0mPVOj/lzuVGL3CxuUE5SSR2nBXPXb1NaT/JZE JAEh7h78LJeDVXRReMBB4pAfwXfAVDMCvnMki08xuBSvwtfUQ/62oZjf8H1GgOWDRbez RRYM18OOI1BzqVH+aPi9sH2dqHT25PjxGHMfM5qWnSgb2vGCaOPfU2GYTNV8FfDe++4i QR/pmkIYKRn5KHAwb85iOz+84rRHvc3irHwS+W70o+MGkzm8p+5uyp8d6HEwnmwUCBNr dz3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533FOZKf4EMe/lYeZbifh4Z2yrcW/tMGGPJKmbBkOPRKhebo6+Ip MjggxisXq+ixbI4vo2/jnT+f/mBV3/h6jcMX8ZcHGMJ0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzR9Xg6n6y1vezB9RbCcX0ZOx1C5rxCf20ixsomXQnBUljLe4WAvfUqSVfx3y5c4qE3Nt8LCd4UraZrWRFuuzI=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5762:: with SMTP id r2mr2891900qvx.45.1606920439767; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 06:47:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201202021651.E8EE128C576A@ary.qy> <327860af-2fa7-63ee-4b89-6e7e383f3d53@crash.com> <2804da89-84d1-f601-9425-0b0d9baf6ae1@gmail.com> <1f6cae74-4eed-47f5-7249-e526bf1f5845@crash.com> <df11af30-2c27-0d69-97ba-bc058116c044@gmail.com> <87y2ig9t9i.fsf@orion.amorsen.dk>
In-Reply-To: <87y2ig9t9i.fsf@orion.amorsen.dk>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:47:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYeZXKKZpvtT2FcYouSsNur7=6d0PqSRnErVPQw6zCMW_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benny Lyne Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fea99205b57c51d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Gdu-IQDS6c1umSD-PpTsRUz2Ul8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=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, 02 Dec 2020 14:47:23 -0000

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 9:29 AM Benny Lyne Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk>
wrote:

> Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >  p: Domain Owner Assessment Policy (plain-text; REQUIRED for policy
> >  records). Indicates the severity of concern the domain owner has, for
> >  mail using its domain but not passing DMARC validation. Policy
> >  applies to the domain queried and to subdomains, unless subdomain
> >  policy is explicitly described using the "sp" tag. This tag is
> >  mandatory for policy records only, but not for third-party reporting
> >  records (see Section 7.1). Possible values are as follows:
> >
> >  none: The Domain Owner offers no expression of concern.
> >
> >  quarantine: The Domain Owner considers such mail to be suspicious. It
> >  is possible the mail is valid, although the failure creates a
> >  significant concern.
> >
> >  reject: The Domain Owner considers all such failures to be a clear
> >  indication that the use of the domain name is not valid.  See Section
> >  10.3 for some discussion of SMTP rejection methods and their
> >  implications.
>
> Perhaps, in retrospect, the p= should have had something like the
> following values:
>
> none
> untrustworthy
> invalid
>
> p= mistakenly chose to use the language of receiver actions to describe
> what is actually domain-owner judgements. This is unfortunate, since it
> risks making the sender believe that it is possible to dictate receiver
> policy.
>
>
p= DID NOT mistakenly choose to use the language of receiver actions. p=
represents the domain-owner request to the receiver as to the disposition
of messages which fail to validate. Any reading of "concern" is supposition
on the part of yourself or other self appointed interpreters of the mind of
the domain-owner or administrator. The vocabulary is perfectly fine as it
accurately describes the request being made. It makes no attempt to read
the underlying reasoning behind the request because, surprisingly, there is
likely to be a wide range of underlying reasoning behind why various
domains publish the policies they publish. This is an interoperability
standard, not a seance.

Michael Hammer