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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Sat, 03 August 2019 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 5E69B120111 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=t77Ud3Y0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=MKyK1zcF
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 q-UE_AAuP40Z for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95B9120108 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 00:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1249F8049F; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 03:02:28 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1564815748; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=+vJUmVFTtC2L7fI7PAujcFz4NTPBiliLc5Seo0qY/mg=; b=t77Ud3Y0ZzhhdKB8B2uVXWyfV3BLsuDTNZb0eYwSvHF967PF7mKpYeAV e7N/hlgpXfVqJDW/4/8zsEgX+GD/BA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1564815748; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=+vJUmVFTtC2L7fI7PAujcFz4NTPBiliLc5Seo0qY/mg=; b=MKyK1zcFFc+Ksu1Rs305+tlvsoPwO81OcxPnk8sJ9KsJuubCpcQXa8l1 I50wbB7PBwziEgbxZNymMDMW5Co+MX/MJQXG/Q/H+Txm+eGInxaXyqBGbL kj07xsEW7eanJzSEejKdbnqpQaS4xeNZs0PPVAc+To7WWgKR6YmzXbHSVu ewUj5NzsgQeNsrhrRbBGw4JcA+ufhgMWC2J2api1Fjp2WgiCShyZBuqInj uVhVOQWqg0jvxf61stRLeegOA53dYHsINzqkr1YUClC8jyIYNMdAMYjiT7 ba58kHKkZeyNi0vtEcF8R+iICF7l04EHSVxvAa9dKMVH/3Hvrr8VPg==
Received: from [192.168.1.184] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DF72F80499; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 03:02:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 07:02:26 +0000
In-Reply-To: <ca1b774878b68db5a88f5369fa3e70f2799b7afe.camel@aegee.org>
References: <20190803030532.1D33375D900@ary.qy> <ca1b774878b68db5a88f5369fa3e70f2799b7afe.camel@aegee.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <0CB7D475-6DDE-403D-BA65-E38C89A6D90A@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/fbW-RkUVjByP8X4YPmCySkP4PqM>
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 07:02:32 -0000


Policy is an indication of sender preference, not a directive the receiver must follow.  I think the definition is fine.  If the sender prefers failing messages be quarantined, then they should use that policy.  They won't get what they want in all cases and that's fine.

Scott K

On August 3, 2019 3:45:24 AM UTC, "Дилян Палаузов" <dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org>; wrote:
>Hello John,
>
>I am really saying, that some addresses, like majordomo@ , which send
>answer to each received and accepted message, have
>no capability to perform a form of “quarantine”.
>
>It does not matter, whether this is an edge case.  Once it is clarified
>how to act in this case, the same procedure can
>be applied to mailboxes, where users want to have no Spam folder.  So
>mailboxes, which capability to quarantine messages
>is disabled and for users, who do not want to receive messages with
>SUSPICIOUS in the subject line or have any
>corresponding headers.  Or for users who statistically never open their
>Spam folder.
>
>So it is a matter of clarifying what the domain owner wishes by
>publishing p=quarantine to happen to messages failing
>DMARC validation, when the receiving address, voluntary or not
>voluntary, does not offer quarantining capability.
>
>I have no problem, if the text "... reject at SMTP level" is not
>attached to the quarantine definition, but is implied
>by reading other passages.  Then it does not make a difference.
>
>Regards
>  Дилян
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 23:05 -0400, John Levine wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>_______________________________________________
>dmarc mailing list
>dmarc@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc