Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Fri, 14 June 2019 15:43 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 3372B120403 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 uuXNIML4Naxk for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 655C11203DB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id v14so3035189wrr.4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
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=sL1fxIVL1rV5O3gHz8lRLEU5mowtRe0FCocwKJLkmlw=; b=oML/x6WTCtNB1+rT8xtNtjZ5+8F09yKMQ59oV31K6lM2yk5ZMpFriUxgtVMowYH3TZ cR/0tae3ncSW0yehUoKtSf+FsrXdl2QCo9VmztV6iyA9P78RvrsWKo3H1My0FU8i2/ba v2+Do5knxm1yHckDx9ED9yJBGPpHokEEzdLJbVBuEODufU2q6nOr+yO5k0akbWhptSX2 N8zD5LGWXaSkvYuXnCzxavNSUcGjHjMcC0DnrKm9J7YumyZq9ehHQn6JrXybU4mDCTxM kxvdZvZ7GUC7CwO84qFNEHXsXhDnkttx6Xl50EXREo42dH7Ru96oLRKx6Q0ZKQOnzMdZ nkgw==
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=sL1fxIVL1rV5O3gHz8lRLEU5mowtRe0FCocwKJLkmlw=; b=MEhvspYUbfAWON1kQlK5hXEBzIeR92+kXVISVh6opgZsm0chYIcji3J5fu7bYB/Wvc 5IML6zPewu27FDZ45blRRbnOM1uml3OjefjEa41Tg0cUGECordapg89JHb6MWqC7SyUh rk4QbWakLwisYSfyIarTfSrqS5+8iCnN6qsO4FK3lcsrav821p+i9i+afwloj1QPGhvG zuseCLPW2J1lQplzD2dqwX6mYsDGeM5rsvwCgt0ZD/qP/ACrdq1cDk/S26sjB3YMpZp5 C4Feme7enZEjoFX3VOJ8m7MiDkash7Qc01bK5kL+XG5wkjVb5LVfsZIpG3Gm1MwnHZ3I zKzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU1YsIULLlAjDHqV3xBvuAXlWaBi+Xpk2ibuojt/4FCTKzHfPpr o9WQdX9gANYgDcVA28Nh6s5lCvvpIkG0LM2WnlY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxrMNyxkfQoPnPp4pR8+vaQ/DFE4JcTw9p0kxunphFNhFlDWeFmEHtmq/MAoZgWIrwGDnccowZH9kjnUKquF9Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4cc3:: with SMTP id c3mr1235396wrt.259.1560526978974; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a8ac130a671f5bcd1bf9f09781325e84a9f1fda6.camel@aegee.org> <b903c983-5c65-5b17-62bf-9ff42ffdbaaa@corp.mail.ru>
In-Reply-To: <b903c983-5c65-5b17-62bf-9ff42ffdbaaa@corp.mail.ru>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:42:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYeJRcGfO7LntM6LBeJ5rMOcb0D=ya31Rm8utoWTqE7oXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vladimir Dubrovin <dubrovin=40corp.mail.ru@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e90bb058b4a8088"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TbkwMacUMoIGcCtFkIAUWSWQk_I>
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:43:04 -0000

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:08 AM Vladimir Dubrovin <dubrovin=
40corp.mail.ru@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

>
> p=quarantine with pct=0 is useful to test DMARC with mailing list/groups
> which perform "From" rewrite based on DMARC policy. It's safe, because
> it actually works like "none" but it causes From rewrites, because it's
> still considered as "quarantine".
>
> I would never recommend to use "quarantine" without pct=0, because it
> can  mask serious deliverability problems.
>

If the only thing they are using to check deliverability is DMARC
reporting, the person has other problems. You should be able to see whether
it passed/failed DKIM and SPF but that does not tell you whether it was
delivered to the end user (at all) or quarantined in a SPAM folder. Many if
not most receiving domains perform all sorts of other checks on incoming
mail.

Michael Hammer

Michael Hammer