Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 20:45 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 067F4120623 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:45:48 -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 E8MABSBJPKtT for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67FD12060C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.88] (unknown [37.228.251.105]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E021A9F146 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1564001145; bh=eCkRRzr+IcQMjy5mxWYaXj3hpZdfJzoLX9oq9jXiOuw=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=MSD6mbuZpSzHiZ+sn8xTgz2IyiPRJ33TTkxjN21ZM5QM3ziiRGScf+HxOsiPj9bnw YGVo5A6lr+NngV7tC/WDCHDY/0DERNn0A/zxGyLPNAFMEUQa7L6zfFFtTHgsCtOuBI mFR2FYzl31HdVeJ1Vwj3qBVFDfNLPdNnvBRBTy9M=
From: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:45:42 +0100
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>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbX4T5=EFZtwPPk9aYdUpR72c4r5t8SB1WETkpXEtUahQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1951EFA7-0695-4B98-9CB1-3ECCEFEBF321@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/aIUnJ3MXuZ06hjU3dDSJrC37qy4>
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:45:48 -0000


> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> OK, I see what you're getting at..
> 
> 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?

Cheers,
  Steve


> 
> As for your proposal:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM Дилян Палаузов <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>; wrote:
> And then, for p=none or any equivalent form of it, there is no need or established practice for mungling, while for
> p=reject; pct=0, or any equivalent form of it, there is mungling.
> 
> This is the current specification.  I proposed on this regard in fact two things:
> - specifying that p=quarantine; pct=0 (email from 10th May to dmarc@ietf) the MLM does mungling
> - abolishing policy quarantine
> 
> That is: p=reject; pct=0 gets almost the same as p=none, except that there is recommendatiton for MLM to mungle From:.
> 
> I'm a little worried about this, but maybe it's just The Way Of Things.  We had intended the publication of a DMARC policy to be a message from the ADMD owning a domain name to any ADMD receiving mail from it about how to handle unauthenticated or unaligned messages.  It's actually morphed on its own into also being a message to any MLM that might be in the way to take particular rewriting actions.  I wonder if the standards track version of DMARC should explicitly take this into account..
> 
> -MSK
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc