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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 03 August 2019 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 9EEF712004D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, 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 (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=dL63tLTP; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=QO2pWN6J
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 X77_QAi9371I for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8EF4120046 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 20:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 83313 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2019 03:05:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=1456f.5d44f9fc.k1908; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=H3JKLX6DnxmYV+E3BeFucBknQquGFw5wHJwKCsf+3dE=; b=dL63tLTP1PcjsCzq6mCM7+cIyPSzCmpt82vIpU6v6JZZzsYJzG3m5bs+cqGXZr6MEuRLIu5aBqPQ7wOnETW+HDmrPaHHxa9M5UwTo1Krcx2WevUlTbAe+97d2XFbdleU2ssNHyXddNWoSUeyyEAQx59yWW12PBRBBywQIPipjL1witBAex8CJ7S/H1gvYmEAScFugQF5Rz4KFoNLmPlD47fN+Cs82mSd+ZxvwD9pfvAZp0LdgpZt6RG/r3ia6vcN
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=1456f.5d44f9fc.k1908; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=H3JKLX6DnxmYV+E3BeFucBknQquGFw5wHJwKCsf+3dE=; b=QO2pWN6JCcKTk15tIS2NimqXHHrxLh9A/t+KHRBCgtYfYcZ7ZhvDW5SS7bwGFOMHnCat8r0rk7EPfmCHG5NFFN3GT8f7cqbiwZhHZdu8cPU4PWzccS9AnMV0KKHnmwGNmxszHGCnATTmHvxC+x7eT1/hh8fcpnG+Zfx2ylv/4i6VWqHVppaujhlXUK+JeRRTzUUDssthL/cS3xQUHpgycj3P0SVPktI9dIeHzxKh5PF1yiZS8E/w9x/NsbJmhbqJ
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP; 03 Aug 2019 03:05:32 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1D33375D900; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 23:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 2 Aug 2019 23:05:31 -0400
Message-Id: <20190803030532.1D33375D900@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <97b7d4320e77f9be84703677eba79686ec769f75.camel@aegee.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WDOudVDbrXpscYPjhpf6mTLEyrQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] New proposed wording for p=quarantiine
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 03:05:34 -0000

In article <97b7d4320e77f9be84703677eba79686ec769f75.camel@aegee.org>; you write:
>Hello John,
>
>the "... reject at SMTP level" is at least for messages, directed to an address, which does not support the
>concept of
>quarantining.
>
>Please propose what shall a site do, receiving a message, subject to quarantining, for an address, that does
>not support quarantining.

It should do what RFC 7489 says:

         ...  Depending on the capabilities of the Mail
         Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize
         with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious".

Are you really saying your mail system has no spam folders, no way to
adjust spam filtering, and no way to mark messages as suspicious
(e.g., add "PROBABLY SPAM" to the subject line)?

If the problem is that it's an address that goes to some software
robot rather than being seen by people, do whatever you want.  That's
an edge case for DMARC.

R's,
John