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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 08 December 2020 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 9D8633A0B5D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:37:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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=iecc.com header.b=feU0ABBi; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=k4ruulhp
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 Pi92_8P4_2b9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:37:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 DDB3D3A0639 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 18:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 79828 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2020 02:37:45 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=137ce.5fcee6f9.k2012; bh=sN+8kCXoZQQ7ipzqqWW/uHG9pMSgbSv17ji3iwSmWRU=; b=feU0ABBiajgNSvZcxYPJaTf88q9PZAQtv6hJZcVL5cb/uL1/OUcIW0qgwgcZ1exDp9M/qFI+zD/5msh6z85gmWEGAGCJI0IZVbOS/PsDcNKWrorm9fFZoF+OEmXV2QRdFfZXP5Us7TOXWSIAd2rniAqDnB2IcdIpyHfsCYDzWPOVfeAwt8Ldmrb6MMQojme9+VlLrHW7nGrZ3r3KaW1H+KK+dg7vc1phmHt7eOSWUTV8qqOYkzrUGVKbjf1NWaIjEF0owu+8Qm7GOFlawsIcr6B6g8teJZicoePkS6Nv6xeD6wAuaroAFU21MlbvKgzfHRHo0Hvl3HO4tsR+p27x0w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=137ce.5fcee6f9.k2012; bh=sN+8kCXoZQQ7ipzqqWW/uHG9pMSgbSv17ji3iwSmWRU=; b=k4ruulhphwFE+N98JOTaQcbRGOk2hKTcQv2fetXLsMGKb+UDfPdlQ3UwRNjeUSB3LI2l++84za8msJ4mw/6OhyN9XG8lF0dxuWGAZOlhbtwx51DeRE4WKsEt2pFZiQCpxmoDgSBu51niqftKU7KTHrxB7v1+COLu4WMiPxC5X6HNE2LfXZlPEjRL2IDBsR1u/d7q7wY8I567R7XCmL7ZFX6ZLgYRsw0IQxMNB39QhEU0Bfjv0rPlWIhpUxW8LgRTAQcp2DXEewAFfFpIIhCAtehBZQbzY/UGiB9qpe89NCALJ+sNjmzcLqU241h+sv5xJCDTf033Js//VXLkKfs5NA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 08 Dec 2020 02:37:45 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9DD5F2925ED5; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:37:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: 7 Dec 2020 21:37:44 -0500
Message-Id: <20201208023744.9DD5F2925ED5@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: blong@google.com
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6uTadmZ-O23w-c3qMHmhofnsuB68_ski8-Q0OFDuQYZmw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TPWQZCVlpuSvu8ekd9tn5i3dTrY>
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 02:37:49 -0000

In article <CABa8R6uTadmZ-O23w-c3qMHmhofnsuB68_ski8-Q0OFDuQYZmw@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>Anyways, +1 to keeping p=quarantine as a concept, but willing to go along
>with the consensus on naming.

I'm modestly in favor of keeping p=quarantine as a feature but utterly opposed
to changing the keywords such as "p=quarantine" in the DMARC record.

It's fine to improve the text in the RFC that describes what they mean but let
us please not make gratuitously incompatible changes.

R's,
John