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

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 01 December 2020 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF4F3A0B50 for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:55:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 vONoxJ5KVCpc for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02A3F3A0B4E for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x4so49778pln.8 for <>; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 15:55:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=q82NkWIk9u+4kQ0BX9nTxqfwKnQXQnNR+Uym9fiyuBE=; b=kogMzJBeQtVYiO8/l5Zm/3zxt2TLfIdUD5rif2bXrP5iLmyKrkUUK0btpOVjzWIj9u l+sFBmVxFwidXTF4FAyEpSAtQopW6gli2wV/lYtZMxXdtdPb3UuVWaGO1IXiSGwEy7yQ j2c2GhfNL7TNESNuBNxbtZxWXqn4swtVAxjYgL/1en3gw2kr+ARiZTcy4TJAxRkPBvyg 8ZPdXwC1gRFNY6Ram3o4NnhCno8mXyobBPGJn3ziURJWT/aFX2AsEIh1UedZsMCFQq1I j7TmGf99WE0yFzuoG8XCd8nGfhm76KMgbWolWCIJ5lgKWzhAoe7/CkD+B/zTCZzI0eyb phDA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=q82NkWIk9u+4kQ0BX9nTxqfwKnQXQnNR+Uym9fiyuBE=; b=ITZK8+pfeCdHsZXcKNuOJJZ85B5i3PETtJWT2tfcGtRCSwxoBB5GboaDCMwZ+Q02Md etzm46oKBx/lobwJi9czcQJwYEL7WU3bhhP2wcpCdMuEJoQDl1YkVXiIfhhX+fsjIclS W9wyplGDWn5JUioskBUn87TWfBIy4PpSbcUfWUXd8NX9klyeJaDnEoXdI/J0opB1I3Zz nhJNnwHUj0PjgeibcAqYiEoWZHrYoFdV9XDCWdx8aaZp8x7LScmiD33az4NvYdn6gk+m g+ickxWyfK4iyJ9VpSkCtRdvOlwpAD0jI0GAv/KZkXgGdtQo4nZ1uAJ1j9XY0/7soFu2 Oxvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dReJKO4tvimeQeBF2BoyBMMtvC8/HTN81Bshv5XJ+ZLkWZlgi ONOe+tOH1zSnZ2yxJCu2ffMF+5smZVw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRBHLEMXfSdFBb69IoXjKD4TjOMPHICCmFIwvEAKvutlldVUG7GkJqXqjQXY7KsZ62atGt6Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6506:b029:da:b472:7131 with SMTP id b6-20020a1709026506b02900dab4727131mr112205plk.38.1606866953195; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 15:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 199sm33769pfb.219.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 15:55:52 -0800 (PST)
To: John R Levine <>,
References: <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:55:51 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 23:55:55 -0000

On 12/1/2020 3:17 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> #39 proposes that we remove p=quarantine.  I propose we leave it in, 
> even if it
> is not very useful, because trying to remove it would be too confusing. 

If it is confusing to remove it, it is probably confusing to keep it, 
albeit a different confusion.

Since protocol specifications need to be precise in their semantics, so 
they are understood the same way by both producers and consumers, I 
suspect the issue, here, is a failure to adequately specify the meaning 
or a failure to specify something that is mutually useful and desired.

So rather that be administratively expeditious for the working group 
process, I suggest this issue gets some meaningful discussion.  My email 
archive indicates it hasn't gotten any discussion at all.

Just waving this through because it will be a hassle to deal with it 
invites random differences in its use, and that is death to 


Dave Crocker

Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
American Red Cross