Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Dotzero <> Fri, 14 June 2019 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3372B120403 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uuXNIML4Naxk for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655C11203DB for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v14so3035189wrr.4 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:42:49 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Vladimir Dubrovin <>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <>, IETF DMARC WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e90bb058b4a8088"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:43:04 -0000

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:08 AM Vladimir Dubrovin <dubrovin=>; 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

Michael Hammer

Michael Hammer