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

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Thu, 03 December 2020 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
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 C900D3A0C26 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
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 yBveaTLq52aS for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 21:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (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 473053A0D69 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 21:51:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=V/dOTPZF36viFun8cLGLqSz2GXwjtjyt/HDNgvmqEMk=; b=fSQIktaxgg42fSaZflmbnhh1c/ CTHL2uVmhkjf5FMH0+WVoabPD/g7ftE658TOM1/pxcL23t/eO0H3fyt0CtP/5JjPePI1To9xABOBY PvGbgsY1aEi0NX8I2osoQ9aTM/8ErfrDbssbNx8CaAoFhubl85xd0ph+HibUgY0hbheE=;
Received: from [2601:647:4400:1261:814f:cf27:ab65:355] (helo=[10.10.20.144]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1kkhWd-00079N-VT; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:51:32 -0800
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: "Steven M Jones" <smj@crash.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:51:31 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <10179782-887D-4C27-A1A0-E2BCB9E5A0A4@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <e4ce658f-3a19-aa24-0fb2-2078d06fcc34@crash.com>
References: <a49a7a79-6c52-ded7-60a3-754cd12fb7c3@taugh.com> <2fc01257-3307-c453-18a0-bc423dccfe6a@gmail.com> <CAH48Zfx448mxL9Btmqp0xUCK88yN9=h6Qus-4u4J2_W14aXwUw@mail.gmail.com> <e4ce658f-3a19-aa24-0fb2-2078d06fcc34@crash.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/T2f31XAp45AWyBzrSNp87Dh91dY>
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 05:52:26 -0000

On 1 Dec 2020, at 17:42, Steven M Jones wrote:

> On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote:

> I really hope no casual readers get the impression that DMARC bypasses 
> spam filtering. DMARC evaluations are expected to be independent of 
> spam evaluations. If there's any overlap here, perhaps it would be for 
> DMARC (and/or underlying protocols) to provide reliable domain 
> attribution to drive a local policy decision about filtering.

Agree about not bypassing spam filtering. But not about the 
“independent of spam evaluations” part. Spam filters are going to 
use any message characteristic that they find useful, including whether 
the message is signed, passes SPF, has an aligned From address, has a 
DMARC record of a certain type, etc. to make a decision. It’s what 
spam filters do, and we have no say about that.

-Jim