Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 15 June 2019 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 49C0E120098 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 03:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 JsUF8DffwpPC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 03:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B31120019 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 03:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1560596354; bh=1OxInXjuvzcbwNZ7xebomdrU0oEUzLNxwzOUEEzopOY=; l=743; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CMEs1M6Hrl1sh8WYtOjDQ5SJA9GmsIP7ZkywHh5f6jDrpmXld5DTe6CH18osNE1uD +chAlFZIsqN9JGLf9s4Py+nmgA0zy1P+7e3LVbEbzYF2tlPo/CJI3pSYCEZxocWNYs 6U4qHPZDXIO2j/a/QjEWwZL72SEopoKovQCq+1Y5JgO4DcTmWA7TOuTAyICS4
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:59:14 +0200 id 00000000005DC03D.000000005D04CF82.000051C8
To: Vladimir Dubrovin <dubrovin=40corp.mail.ru@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>
References: <a8ac130a671f5bcd1bf9f09781325e84a9f1fda6.camel@aegee.org> <b903c983-5c65-5b17-62bf-9ff42ffdbaaa@corp.mail.ru> <CAJ4XoYeJRcGfO7LntM6LBeJ5rMOcb0D=ya31Rm8utoWTqE7oXQ@mail.gmail.com> <0295aa1e-733a-b3ae-14cb-edcb2050d6af@corp.mail.ru>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Openpgp: id=0A5B4BB141A53F7F55FC8CBCB6ACF44490D17C00
Message-ID: <2c6f2b9e-5ada-f4c3-1162-5c3229229466@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:59:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0295aa1e-733a-b3ae-14cb-edcb2050d6af@corp.mail.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/RM63GeE8XB60Gr5rYW8x-XdRc28>
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: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:59:19 -0000

On Fri 14/Jun/2019 18:25:02 +0200 Vladimir Dubrovin wrote:

> If you are implementing DMARC for a new domain (let's say example.org), you
> usually start with "p=none". With p=none you receive reports for failed DMARC
> for different lists, like ietf.org. Before switching to stronger policy
> (p=reject), you may want to know which mailing list will still fail DMARC, and
> which lists perform From munging and, as a result, do not fail DMARC. For this
> purpose, before switching to "p=reject" it's useful to switch to
> "p=quarantine;pct=0". After this, you will only see mailing lists without From
> munging in DMARC reports.
> 


I still don't get why "p=quarantine;pct=0" is better than "p=reject;pct=0".


Best
Ale
--