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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 02 August 2019 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 6216612004D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=EQcCfLrp; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=WwGbysSl
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 kb4LiV4R8Xfs for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F8D120024 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 42928 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2019 22:49:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a7ad.5d44bded.k1908; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=DZoZZ3EkKmT5eLvrWSQ1xIGeNpfod116JYfe93SSawU=; b=EQcCfLrpbCOJuKFfSfi1v8owzBpx9m2YOp89wEFxeDV3WfF0TnzaFMx6stjSSdFWnbowSBtMk/9hefeuSFophOKpAD3W0IV4sRyNByOYFO25pCsHpoc4r+BZR83Q2X9eVYL3/ZENcaa/spivM4ddz+ykhey1f0vb0av6IwehukihWeKSn7e2O+NuFNolyqxZ1Otv6XbxZh3L7xFmgx/u6njf+e7dhh19gAN8U3OU1zDWUhr17M6wAyat0UBPtOUs
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a7ad.5d44bded.k1908; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=DZoZZ3EkKmT5eLvrWSQ1xIGeNpfod116JYfe93SSawU=; b=WwGbysSls1MTVF4Vg6i7R9XospMtxMCb/sh1/Fe7XsyvA6mqvrHWc4BRO+AGDH3xL5kgV8r0vrCssHRXqecOvVqFfEP9d+PR5RDxHSizpKf83R36TFIVZMbN8J3YfPnLHwYg9Kx1FkEFwamZGTjT0Zi3ycpugm7cewftLGVWCaiAwHWxYckZ7GIzwXOjIvs4lDR2z1ej+eS3PJ5WGkUiI7VnZ15I1ifb+WsSXJZ/5d80etbAKx35CGKl68IUuVVX
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP; 02 Aug 2019 22:49:17 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 331FB75B032; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 2 Aug 2019 18:49:17 -0400
Message-Id: <20190802224917.331FB75B032@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: dilyan.palauzov@aegee.org
In-Reply-To: <c586258d8480a4ff71d3c14bef10cf3aec66ab7d.camel@aegee.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rwN8AtY1HISoaqD66j2yoEvq6WI>
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: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 22:49:20 -0000

In article <c586258d8480a4ff71d3c14bef10cf3aec66ab7d.camel@aegee.org>; you write:
>Current wording for p=quarantine
>      quarantine:  The Domain Owner wishes to have email that fails the
>         DMARC mechanism check be treated by Mail Receivers as
>         suspicious.  Depending on the capabilities of the Mail
>         Receiver, this can mean "place into spam folder", "scrutinize
>         with additional intensity", and/or "flag as suspicious".
>
>Amendment to the wording for p=quarantine:
>
>… or reject at SMTP level. ...

No.  We really, really, don't like changes that aren't backward
compatible.  You can do what you want but there is no chance I would
ever make p=quarantine a signal to reject, and I think I am not
atypical.

R's,
John

PS: You can of course do whatever you want on your own system.