Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.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 74C541202B9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 GimxrYy44mpE for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DA8E12006E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id p13so48648755wru.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cZ9vxupbeY/s2iQcGaFBsOwyLPfauycTORRXYw/XNCk=; b=Lv2NlLvSmzN/E+G98U1hGsmvJDBzMD2A0WdUUlfZ4Dk/+JbbCXo/cAT9k3ai3jHfLK MK82EmGXVbv+6ueFGt/jSpmLmshg+oA2Y0fpps9P//1irJNjZofYWyUQDj6Ro2s7pby4 yRspfUtDa2H67hyfUupIumx+aPuJ8mjz/D+fTnjoKbUls5w/6n66wi8h4zj9fpLkyvF/ P/HRgCm1dJFknks9jqkHSpqxio9cQ2U5uIp5yfsvt995g0a+xzv8kUuXOBOHFgBajH1u oc2aCGXbXcq7MKI/PRpjTXrms6dKrVaJ2S+DEr5rx2ZC0J0Inn5d8MiYebsKcFHm3Ds2 2qqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cZ9vxupbeY/s2iQcGaFBsOwyLPfauycTORRXYw/XNCk=; b=dqidxmR16sLGaBHoNYBbFfjw59IfkimWBxIVAeWNeSgOwtXnEarVSyomeM9in587Bv D/8VjvnoLF+elAuT5L1QSNu9HQxD2l4ZfKGBYSsP5fe44oj3DtrDkVdBSjmy9P5BM5Ik UIY1/I2Tf9M41Gob4zx5T9LYKHbe8gh2J4QsEtyJqDSmN1/sEGNiG4x+bX3ZGnE8Wzot /obUsnu7i/jJKkYklMGXTBU4KzJag0w0hqLabQ4hoUawE4+kqccslRk1zsPgavCh7MOH 4j2CP9y8V+kC+22OdxZl54lvGkPcSFS/Rma63crZ3BCH/ihDEmwI74sRJ/4BwI8KIFB2 /fdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWjfY6yBx6zOVO3wOCLjkz4WIInO8P945GRsonplooGaIp1S0uU sM0nelIrBNxB3TrkGwwbIPIzHwgGC3Uth2xaO4w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx6DlZbfXyn63tnOj6pllafTD4dPFOQimUK2ZcLCKbDHmwmbd7lt6hzYAvkLY2yAvd5K4wyf+lvZfCb739BLfQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4484:: with SMTP id j4mr89997806wrq.143.1564010841821; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbixESJypwDG3NMuv22+Lb3w-iHPok8xZf-hy3Fiu38EA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:27:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ4XoYdb2JSgoqO+aTjGe3NGR2BWS3OzJPq1DADpbCxGSdrE3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve@wordtothewise.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6d54e058e75a611"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jiJOGhbTzXGFDPpiu3QYERKtwBk>
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 23:27:26 -0000

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:07 PM 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.
>
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
>

My recollection is that we definitely did not intend that.

Michael Hammer