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

Дилян Палаузов <> Sat, 10 August 2019 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62374120099 for <>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:44:00 -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 YsAmryBGwJwl for <>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:43:58 -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 CDA41120098 for <>; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (LOGIN) smtp.auth=didopalauzov
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=k4096; t=1565426632;; r=y; bh=KKLBdBvkkiflZeVhOGuRcQevlFwgm/HjrI3B5N61GZs=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=dZat8KFYeV+1tgad/ZqOI/q13qljd3GTNyllA/LKBYmWRH1qzqM9RH6meeuKr7K1j 17QBiR6/bPXuplx59lxcwQohtsXqT7zFLn0asfTn4ecQQP3NBUQrZN/C9pwoztxZ/6 J8b9Je4aHDwK0641v9WyCQQ89+kUHQvOCkcB2GV9SDXNOwRMON5Xn+KV5oljAQ2ZJu PRJe/KGn7Izcl65pwGZVoqeXlC7gpb27zj00kScXOxzYzanZtkrmKGdlUcigjz+jir qNojfE8LdfS4xCFaurmQv8k3Mod5qD0yUZR/n1e2ax8zg4Vo/+gCs5RrL7gABUZLQj IjiGCNeNnuya9QNr1YXNh2Q9tMK6/UD/fg2a2fPCWvtZN2gWeLU2jMG/cA1hTXa3KI kH+7563BH2sItIk1D2scnIQEsXgbD7E28LyaGF9AXQGGrGHd/7FzOekdpmwCNWayNg toQ9U4C6ssEHcXIciaSB1LnRBkGUrc6yJjg9ob8Wa8iSn7C6P9d2BDy8iaB/bZ+snG yPC3jykxDSElw9ubJcN6pL8hh8GUqO5ghgp5wAtjanXZGNryryF69qUlgLa7pE1X0I hIJYN6fsmmLFmUS4/WMAaAr9C6DVGS/1FHPGHd7j0t7bM/pmTlwDMMOtnGM8kYSZmC SGZ93fzN058CMrwJeWVCKsro=
Authentication-Results:; dkim=none
Received: from Tylan ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7A8hpES019056 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:43:52 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: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>, Scott Kitterman <>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 08:43:51 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20190803030532.1D33375D900@ary.qy> <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.33.91
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.3 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, 10 Aug 2019 08:44:01 -0000


to the idea to amend the existing definition of p=:

  quarantine:  The Domain Owner wishes to have email that fails the
         DMARC mechanism check be treated by Mail Receivers as
         suspicious.  Depending on the capabilities of the Mail
         Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize
         with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious".

the text “

The Domain Owner wishes in addition, that the sender of messages failing DMARC are notified about the suspicious
handling with an appropriate rejection message.  Senders not willing to be notified that their message is suspicious,
shall use the NOTIFY=NEVER service extension.

In the past, Domain Owner could express as wish either to reject or to quarantine.  Considering that from the options:
only reject; only qurantine; and quarantine, while notifying the sender about the suspicious handling of the message;
nobody will choose only to quarantine, the interpretation of what the Domain Owner wishes by publishing quarantine was
changed to include the rejection component.”

so far two voices were against.  The reasoning against the amendment is that writing what the domain owner wants is just
its preference, not anything binding, and the current definition is sufficient.

My motivation in favour the amendment is, that currently nobody has the practice to quarantine messages and inform the
sender of the special delivery status at the same time.   Spelling more precisely what the domain owner wants will
suggest the implementations to implement precisely that preference.

With other words, the sole reason why a receiving host does not notify the sender for quarintined message might be, that
the receiving site has not come to this idea.  The additional text removes the cause.

If there was a common practice by now to deliver as junk and reject with appropriate text at SMTP level, then the
amendment would have been less necessary.


On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 08:13 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:02 AM Scott Kitterman <> wrote:
> > Policy is an indication of sender preference, not a directive the receiver must follow.  I think the definition is fine.  If the sender prefers failing messages be quarantined, then they should use that policy.  They won't get what they want in all cases and that's fine.
> This matches my understanding.
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list