Re: [dmarc-ietf] p=quarantine

tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 09 December 2020 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 A2D773A165D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:52:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Pgm90C7d24EB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 BB6D63A117F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id n142so2058199qkn.2 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 09:52:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:cc :date:message-id:references:to; bh=Cn01GsjjdqyoGfACbpxBgoEOOOo1fqcWDpThrfWhbpA=; b=rscXIdUBj6k6sm3NN8jw0x1QxNbGdZkdr6aXCJazbDqllx8BBQN5RNR1EmM+YnCeZb NdT2o0NRNw8LJjVHXILwzAIca4Ks+Kh3KXI+LylanreQt1e8tvKjZSFsLpPl/O3rHph6 FpqoWAGEcq5XWIOrlRKH1zWKt7OdxlLv5PT0wMYTSGXEFA5+TtqfnT2/ZmxF0azBVYiz OoLyPIdwQKkctZ32fZYHp3YsO24uk7a85JV2K69Ysn2EGixPrbgPJY0sEzSqz6M+80s8 7PK1qq3IQKjaN7WclxRM/QrObeb/fAZ3doMibuRXS+fmfltEfI/OoCCmhJ7OQBR2jEPI TztQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:cc:date:message-id:references:to; bh=Cn01GsjjdqyoGfACbpxBgoEOOOo1fqcWDpThrfWhbpA=; b=KykT+VNqX7mAN6t2RbHDqU469nomHDSl6sJUVJ7HJB+HlY0iPZkaRTEVMEXaWdDfNz C1gfCDCEpFoA9YwCjGI6NScZ23QJbbECHtpAiubbO3Ng9APjxYuQIZf0XDbAVJH9lRIC dZQ23m8FXTDDEB84WWfvdOcFZzInO+q1T8zrlm0Te4c+YAHiYL7P4Tay5GG510qdd1Vl reHJf/lBPf4XDcwo1tmDgcgX/wT0lyJp4IyUNPD91SnzdOICKx3NVAcU9JE5dxPgFbuj 1pOCuiq7X4s/CUfk/zECdT0dxZkocU4RzMIOYXSUyZR/D9wyovxoe5W9+DS6rOINmP1x SASQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MF5tFBkvHtyi+lp0UecuFe3t1BPrbbzU2dyTLdHcUsMIStivq pzd27RWBpWxyRdPgRdMZRxw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUbStJO2ofHoELa4UBOINYyV0ga2PofdkcKAivvy6UUONIRo6aHVAMX6h9fshdOdAoSrgvog==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15ea:: with SMTP id p10mr4443182qkm.172.1607536348728; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 09:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] ([184.15.58.81]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z186sm1551110qke.100.2020.12.09.09.52.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Dec 2020 09:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-2D8F35DC-EA7B-4674-87DC-1A1EADD3F36E"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <923de33f-3707-facf-389e-371f6ee64008@gmail.com>
Cc: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>, dmarc@ietf.org, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 12:52:27 -0500
Message-Id: <16B0B820-7080-4937-8642-3A6B84B441AA@gmail.com>
References: <923de33f-3707-facf-389e-371f6ee64008@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18B92)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/W8CaplK0ZK4csuxbeSlmfFf10w4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] 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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 17:52:32 -0000

I agree strongly with Dave on creating boring and precise terminology/references, and they are used over and over. 



Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 9, 2020, at 12:40, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/8/2020 12:11 PM, Dotzero wrote:
>> Note that I asked Two questions. Your answer appears directed to the second question. The answer to the first question appears fairly clear to me. Administrators of a system can restrict or delete a user account. It really is as simple as that. So in that respect the answer is that ultimately an individual account users do not supersede the wishes/policy of the domain owners representatives.
>> 
>> The second question is a bit more interesting, but ultimately leads one back to the first question. As far as being long settled, I would think that NSF AUP is an interesting precedent.
>> 
>> Michael Hammer
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2020 10:50 AM, Dotzero wrote:
>>> > And here we get to some of the crucial unresolved questions involving 
>>> > email: "Does the wishes of a user of an account at a domain supercede 
>>> > the policies of the domain owner/administrator of a domain?"
> 
> Sorry, I misread the text I responded to.  To some extent, we all tend to be ambiguous in our references -- though the specific text I misread was not -- and it will help if we are all a lot more consistently precise. 
> 
> 
> 
> For example:
> 
> Author: creates content
> 
> Author Domain: controls the use of the domain, per the statement I misread.  And yes, the domain owner has ultimate authority over polices of how the domain is used, by those subject to administration by the domain owner.  Obviously the domain owner has no 'authority' over those using the domain without authorization.  For this latter set of folk, the most the domain owner can do is provide information to receivers of unauthorized use.
> 
> Receivers: They have full and complete authority over their operations.  Period, full stop.  There is no 'overriding' the so-called policies of anyone with whom they do not have a pre-existing relationship.
> 
> Recipients: They are, of course, subject to the policies of the owner of the platform being used.  They, to, are not subject to the desires of authors or author domain owners, except as the recipient themselves desire.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it will help to be boringly, redundantly precise with every reference, to leave no room for misunderstanding which actor is being referenced.
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> dcrocker@gmail.com
> 408.329.0791
> 
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Cross
> dave.crocker2@redcross.org
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc