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

Benny Lyne Amorsen <> Wed, 02 December 2020 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0BC3A1225 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:28:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wiwd3jTaf14H for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84C203A1224 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 06:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from list by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1kkT7d-0008m3-Ul for; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:28:45 +0100
From: Benny Lyne Amorsen <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:28:41 +0100
Message-ID: <>
References: <20201202021651.E8EE128C576A@ary.qy> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+8ctcWOdCqR1oDRI0VUkIlOxGUA=
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: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 14:28:49 -0000

Dave Crocker <> writes:

>  p: Domain Owner Assessment Policy (plain-text; REQUIRED for policy
>  records). Indicates the severity of concern the domain owner has, for
>  mail using its domain but not passing DMARC validation. Policy
>  applies to the domain queried and to subdomains, unless subdomain
>  policy is explicitly described using the "sp" tag. This tag is
>  mandatory for policy records only, but not for third-party reporting
>  records (see Section 7.1). Possible values are as follows:
>  none: The Domain Owner offers no expression of concern. 
>  quarantine: The Domain Owner considers such mail to be suspicious. It
>  is possible the mail is valid, although the failure creates a
>  significant concern.
>  reject: The Domain Owner considers all such failures to be a clear
>  indication that the use of the domain name is not valid.  See Section
>  10.3 for some discussion of SMTP rejection methods and their
>  implications.

Perhaps, in retrospect, the p= should have had something like the
following values:


p= mistakenly chose to use the language of receiver actions to describe
what is actually domain-owner judgements. This is unfortunate, since it
risks making the sender believe that it is possible to dictate receiver

Perhaps new names can be found, and the old ones kept as historical