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

Дилян Палаузов <> Wed, 02 December 2020 11:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB1A3A128F for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 03:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_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 JhQ-HXLeIkLD for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 03:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CCBB3A1114 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 03:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (LOGIN)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=k4096; t=1606907749;; bh=t08bBkM5LSlpruKHP/lSFg5YllR5M2jEziCL1QjXOI4=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=q8J7NlkXrbeudUF8N56mYXEXxWFC+kUVHuXZXa/8kMzKnW2y1gBF9P5BifkqZWBXK M75C8AjDVxDy6JUBKqqZdAQ4mFe9bvVhgFVuek0LIOBxfYytWUky6KSEzuFjTJZrG0 GOEhgYKhx/xMwiMn5UvR6TDAn7tcvEX588IQO3oOyRaZAVhZywWZrAljP9lqAUoHuq 1f3UUjG7ZGBKNnCjqevHpNcAfc3mhaUMNOOct1fqIgJKjn4FOOTZLWc4t5yW3rAhuI kS+gOCOJasB4sKPs2suLqk8tc5wlJeTWN5ZecU8S9qMXuAdacA+YEwpvoA+/VS2yR0 ClaTPGseQ8ybn5EqPFZbExnEjbkuA4z/Co8VQ/FUxBwZHiXWDLqRitBnYhFdUyVHLn ed5LAS0CMXqhgVkhxRG5gq0MQbRVA+u0KmNOMv8WgTnQgBjJUBRmmxjNwCjbj6OOmu MtKs2MVVnZ17gLr4+MtGseFgIpIWrM1qsKXiPMbFxUpmIv7xBTClhfvD+VCsI3JbWO huP/7YUSulMW3VBdqvusPNxLw29AGgYdd1URx9iVhlIreVOUgAE8yzoV3EEEIrVgs1 nCujGR6FWDkrr4U/Qxkj5W7MQ0Z4E7KiOypd3PgkWv09yjeV/bJlInsKc4psoeXoLX ujCU+4heMhtRgvUCDwafV28c=
Authentication-Results:; dkim=none
Received: from [] ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 0B2BFmQq2625855 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Dec 2020 11:15:49 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: Dave Crocker <>, John R Levine <>,
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:15:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.39.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 11:15:56 -0000


On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 15:55 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/1/2020 3:17 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> > #39 proposes that we remove p=quarantine.  I propose we leave it
> > in, 
> > even if it
> > is not very useful, because trying to remove it would be too
> > confusing. 
> process, I suggest this issue gets some meaningful discussion.  My
> email 
> archive indicates it hasn't gotten any discussion at all.

This was discussed under the subject “Abolishing DMARC policy
quarantine” in June 2019.  There was no consensus.  SMTP offers this
distinciton and this is mirrored in DMARC.  In particular, senders are
free to publish p=quarantine and receipients are free to interpret it
as p=reject.  Senders can publish p=reject and receivers are free to
interpret it as p=quarantine.

Moreover, some destination addresses do not have the concepts of a
quarantine.  E.g an address that accepts commands for mailing lists
managements.  Such addresses can either accept or reject the message -
there is no quarantine, so interpreting published p=quarantine as
p=reject is feasible.

Recalling the discussion from June 2019 I do not count on any different
consensus, if it the discussion happens here again now.