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

Дилян Палаузов <> Sat, 03 August 2019 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B020012006D for <>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (4096-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s5CbHd64BROl for <>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 686C212001A for <>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=k4096; t=1564803925;; r=y; bh=UgSuSP12zlgGv35RiKbuJiDqzfjweVybn4tPguViogk=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=XLNvWtyiDRCVsIqfedLtQhl/bIp/wyFw1seG5P1NqPoozMD7BVlKZ7noqE/+pWoCx tMJHTqVDb51G6hXoeelPLFDVR3GpKDSQgvq5L7Hk4iztuYqLZNUBggNU3pShTzMh3+ Cyp/qLTTK4a5Od4Ng5K+QAecxS4l+KNCAyPVHZnnNNPjpQAby1KiEDmxMsx335fDcg 5vKVqZEjCiunnUYCk4t4kBO2vvaG6VdhVzoWs32uw1VehPXv8FFv6CMAsFS+PqtlHb X2JVS20lBsOtz/YLT9KLI+fW9WXFVg075v6bA5ilWJMxyeNx/w6+Q5+RnyxS4YTd+N qacf0KF0KmaCLqIFGHXuzPp+rZqM7JZPmnRJqftinafo20Sd5LN7y/DSxMxAByNPR3 INn9RMqrJOWeSL4xVVWCmyic9JY313uRWlTjcjZHzxrzVTG09CImd2/Jw0bNRRIgGs jpR4wcMn4jmQHptnIglzgxZO0+PHjxPhx8a2uBkdSsLIka9vgi2vCpwRsmcmqlDbKF oHuEttD45YoBOfZcvghGwYVkrdLXXPVW+Uk8H7ipPgxTYZo09B5nc61rlNzHreGubc A8/hZ3DDC7Ns+rQpUNGnqZlVgtvAc77SlATm3EzidBRGep5UkWbuOMZ+Fxz1hd1Zrv iAwZaEeacb3ybHyeMiO5VcRM=
Authentication-Results:; dkim=none
Received: from Tylan ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x733jOn9016312 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Aug 2019 03:45:24 GMT
Message-ID: <>
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?= <>
To: John Levine <>,
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 03:45:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20190803030532.1D33375D900@ary.qy>
References: <20190803030532.1D33375D900@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
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New proposed wording for p=quarantiine
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 03:45:30 -0000

Hello John,

I am really saying, that some addresses, like majordomo@ , which send answer to each received and accepted message, have
no capability to perform a form of “quarantine”.

It does not matter, whether this is an edge case.  Once it is clarified how to act in this case, the same procedure can
be applied to mailboxes, where users want to have no Spam folder.  So mailboxes, which capability to quarantine messages
is disabled and for users, who do not want to receive messages with SUSPICIOUS in the subject line or have any
corresponding headers.  Or for users who statistically never open their Spam folder.

So it is a matter of clarifying what the domain owner wishes by publishing p=quarantine to happen to messages failing
DMARC validation, when the receiving address, voluntary or not voluntary, does not offer quarantining capability.

I have no problem, if the text "... reject at SMTP level" is not attached to the quarantine definition, but is implied
by reading other passages.  Then it does not make a difference.


On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 23:05 -0400, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
> > 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.
> It should do what RFC 7489 says:
>          ...  Depending on the capabilities of the Mail
>          Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize
>          with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious".
> Are you really saying your mail system has no spam folders, no way to
> adjust spam filtering, and no way to mark messages as suspicious
> (e.g., add "PROBABLY SPAM" to the subject line)?
> If the problem is that it's an address that goes to some software
> robot rather than being seen by people, do whatever you want.  That's
> an edge case for DMARC.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list