Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=quarantine

Dotzero <> Thu, 03 December 2020 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6445F3A0AB4 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:30:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tHyUX-Rvdsxq for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D6783A0AB5 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ek7so383742qvb.6 for <>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 20:30:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YrKLNGtrh8tYTIFPldVnTpD7iTX6MAPs4XcAUcuBLO0=; b=JhKz2+fTHZu2BtGGObYm2GzzMgnN/zhMP2IXKAI5ap7Tt/hGjhpFXtdHQbnsNapubz rSX7Pv1AeE3btTeiBfT6JNXRNJtHKoazIEnsxPJe/IHzJYd5MeMMiMjxbH5+NWIcquch BfkaOxEEHnfi6poQ9cdGRHkVB5yKFWuPl+JyeQ+ay94JVXm5B5tTjX079KiQoTLsLDWe KYXJK3MOYwt6sw5iAU4BCUCPS+a1OpLqBJGnTtqgS9hIXLbGFKeccPU9SRB+y4YzVUrd GkNM94xzC4jEE2mW0Hh2fL1nSUa5UbhdYouXBI3KzJP1Xd2CSh9fXAszQnvucQxVCg+I sPTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YrKLNGtrh8tYTIFPldVnTpD7iTX6MAPs4XcAUcuBLO0=; b=bXwzQjiPWpjP1vf0mr5QolaklvnfGNlpbUiIzFrfGDo+Ua0SgZu/vPdTJVS/mdg0fD blKOtGAdGl7VgHPrWbrJyiCXkb4QO7USGfeq/hoazETJAgLT5TbWgXDlZVNC6uCWvXUh vlIUWoaJRLjX2RuSbLRQVOsVqFQoUjHsmKDvXbDMTOWjIinPEejhmhTXfafcMdTlrOJD zixwJP/ejBPCL9T8PySbduo4anQYF2NUsYusR87iWowcCQRjbRgaeXsHXHKbqd5DY3NF vF+y9Reeln/TzpF3a/u1Uh0VXNfuq9AVuvcyAa+jUhPWKpl+TIOiVq0A19yC9JY1k0l6 5ntw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wNY9bViJb3pqqOQHTk8SDm3w/Cs3yn6Um24K8oLlP+f+Ueei0 H3xVZW/TRlPuQIsQfLbbvexmBgthCTAtiGL2BcRP7nWmuDQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbrqTHvsyLYla9elFrwxjw5Dbw2zVv6jvPad282DErWwk2UBoIhSTvZmsE2Vvxo8I3oe9E3V4TxbUx/LmyLAI=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e6e7:: with SMTP id m7mr1317452qvn.11.1606969811435; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 20:30:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201202021651.E8EE128C576A@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dotzero <>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:29:59 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Benny Lyne Amorsen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c6882a05b587d091"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #39 - remove p=quarantine
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 04:30:14 -0000

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:35 PM Benny Lyne Amorsen <>

> Dotzero <> writes:
> > p= DID NOT mistakenly choose to use the language of receiver
> > actions. p= represents the domain-owner request to the receiver as to
> > the disposition of messages which fail to validate. Any reading of
> > "concern" is supposition on the part of yourself or other self
> > appointed interpreters of the mind of the domain-owner or
> > administrator. [..] This is an interoperability standard, not a
> > seance.
> Am I particularly thin-skinned for considering this language
> inflammatory?

Your assertion that the drafters of DMARC mistakenly chose the language of
receivers is inflammatory. I don't remember you as part of the group that
developed DMARC. To make assertions regarding what people were thinking
when one wasn't present falls into the same realm as seances.

> The thing is, domain owners can request anything they want, but why
> should anyone listen? Particularly if they are rude about it instead of
> asking nicely.

The thing is, Validators and Receivers will do what they will do. It is
important to remember that DMARC only allows for "neutral" statements (no
policy) or negative assertions (quarantine or reject). It does not allow
for positive assertions (deliver my message to the inbox) nor does it allow
assertions for anything except the domain owners own domain) To the extent
that domain owner requests make sense they will be considered and used by
Validators and Receivers. To the extent they don't, they won't be used. It
really is that simple. Would any Validator or Receiver take seriously a
DMARC policy assertion of p=reject based on an SPF record using  **
-all? Doubtful.

> When someone brings up a concern they have and explain why it is of
> benefit to either the recipient or the community to take certain
> actions, that will likely be heard. However, unexplained edicts are
> unlikely to be taken very seriously.

How seriously should someone's "concern" be taken when it is phrased as an
assertion of knowing what was in the minds of people when that someone
wasn't present. That someone might have phrased it as a question rather
than a declarative. As far as unexplained "edicts", quite a few receivers
use SPF/DKIM/DMARC in their calculus as to how they handle mail destined
for their systems. So there is clearly some perceived benefit or they
wouldn't be doing so.

Michael Hammer