Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <steve@wordtothewise.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 7D05F12015F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.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 9Rjavrzjm7Av for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD38A12002E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [37.228.251.105]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C0049F146; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1564059238; bh=7QlRqdBKGjtA7QvqBvIO9yz7Y7juKUrJG7V0AHL1Egs=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=lQRBL0kB8jPSLoDARpi18cK6ZPjaIS2kv4LfKr1kmGLH4uWOwP1FZmh0dMnFYMdjp wHGUejGZW09F54CsYLvk87ECda/9SqNWLISAtLc07VVneULbfct4+PdeWf/LTA7UR0 EojEBRji1WCSTsmYtDVPz4PGvGIojYNoj5qvQqv8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbixESJypwDG3NMuv22+Lb3w-iHPok8xZf-hy3Fiu38EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:53:55 +0100
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7DFCE75A-4D31-4DEF-BD12-F161EE8D2CA9@wordtothewise.com>
References: <a8ac130a671f5bcd1bf9f09781325e84a9f1fda6.camel@aegee.org> <b903c983-5c65-5b17-62bf-9ff42ffdbaaa@corp.mail.ru> <CAJ4XoYeJRcGfO7LntM6LBeJ5rMOcb0D=ya31Rm8utoWTqE7oXQ@mail.gmail.com> <0295aa1e-733a-b3ae-14cb-edcb2050d6af@corp.mail.ru> <CAL0qLwYYEMofia2S4a8oXsf02fnJg7y+DovvMWZENUW+4yUyiw@mail.gmail.com> <36cba315-e738-ddec-0f6c-2e6086b69d11@corp.mail.ru> <70da228a75b94c28097ce0c25bc407d93e86c4c2.camel@aegee.org> <CAL0qLwbX4T5=EFZtwPPk9aYdUpR72c4r5t8SB1WETkpXEtUahQ@mail.gmail.com> <1951EFA7-0695-4B98-9CB1-3ECCEFEBF321@wordtothewise.com> <CAL0qLwbixESJypwDG3NMuv22+Lb3w-iHPok8xZf-hy3Fiu38EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WR0N-DsWFcGO6LhiYmEmMctq0L0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy 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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:54:01 -0000


> On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:06 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:45 PM Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com> wrote:
> > It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject; pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".
> 
> It's semi-explicitly defined that way in the RFC, isn't it?
> 
> If so, we should fix it because (a) I don't think that's how we intended it, and (b) in any case, nothing in there should be only semi-explicit.

rfc 7489 6.6.4

"If email is subject to the DMARC policy of "reject", the Mail
   Receiver SHOULD reject the message (see  Section 10.3).  If the email
   is not subject to the "reject" policy (due to the "pct" tag), the
   Mail Receiver SHOULD treat the email as though the "quarantine"
   policy applies.  This behavior allows Domain Owners to experiment
   with progressively stronger policies without relaxing existing
   policy."

It's pretty clear and well-defined; the case we're talking about, "p=reject; pct=0", is
just a special case of this general rule.

All emails will not be subject to the "reject" policy due to the pct=0 tag, so the mail
receiver should treat all emails as though the policy "quarantine" applies (which
is the same as "p=quarantine; pct=100").

Cheers,
  Steve