Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Wed, 24 July 2019 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC5A120674 for <>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S_PUmklilOYZ for <>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41AE412066B for <>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m23so45631882lje.12 for <>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
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=bG5gRQ0MxolJh5HG4GbM/jAMJ81ozWGZmwuOdS/aJ/0=; b=uirAWFkRkobaoxJ8CRw3rVPzdSQLF6uP5QuoKy38lhjVbfI9M64CaqClfbtnLAIeex H4klcx/alzuVvktzSFJvod9EJ7K1d51GtlBazoMSiV84sHA00ddcuauHpGZ4qw7ius7M PpRANTynR/qY28Sncz2pab2gCdbv/w6eOmbutyEBMvVZW7okRKsKBdjYjFcuon2vzeIs e0BWr/2ruy1WBS6/s/H9BXL5enRuL8Fb9DRBuCLyadJkUkWLg9LVM4SZ7UmGfNKhulwV Y5Xdq+zH/xQBEL4otVk/2k/b06q8pjQWfRhs5SCSYcYJR3vXBAC/C1BUmRGH4Sf5tOyd 6A5g==
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=bG5gRQ0MxolJh5HG4GbM/jAMJ81ozWGZmwuOdS/aJ/0=; b=S/OFKWXpweaAxNrLwmyJNSi9GD53TeL8+HY+nPr6MMK7qPvY98A16IF6MMaH0GKWbu /5BO10eEQB1eXixpDT7MFXMmURtie/mHzfaa9kgyn2FDQyG+cybwsYBpNbCxPJQzxiW4 kOX3EID09vRq4XwOt2UJy8ELScewso8oYhDKlO7UsjZe8t5lQ5rbVJzyDYSh1q6cQ9Nv 0YlacEYwrUTJparReBAdsS7foVGnOkEFIW83Ol1gT19jeJUf9HCtsXZKypuTTxKFujwX pglIHZUyUh8ToM/hMlQ9q2GhFZUp3T067Fd3om1+0zjxqdnRKHgvkN9fA1lRGkHqYU0z hCoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWlP3stnqnbbbBVs9mh01J5Y2r+D9j5FjXx/NoZlQJKYzNoaXM1 AZ0TZsZKPg+GGbZE14tFTdDy/7c1Sam23R8IL5Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxjys5433aef0+5EdHNojLsnveJpPlWP+ah5DM2k9OKmPnQ/YllC/MAID94BaBqr7fJt00iLkUDF1KRNzD19fg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:870f:: with SMTP id m15mr44204049lji.223.1563998860407; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:07:27 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?B?0JTQuNC70Y/QvSDQn9Cw0LvQsNGD0LfQvtCy?= <>
Cc: Vladimir Dubrovin <>, Vladimir Dubrovin <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Dotzero <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000080f801058e72dc43"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Abolishing DMARC policy 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, 24 Jul 2019 20:07:49 -0000

OK, I see what you're getting at.

It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject;
pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".

As for your proposal:

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM Дилян Палаузов <>

> And then, for p=none or any equivalent form of it, there is no need or
> established practice for mungling, while for
> p=reject; pct=0, or any equivalent form of it, there is mungling.
> This is the current specification.  I proposed on this regard in fact two
> things:
> - specifying that p=quarantine; pct=0 (email from 10th May to dmarc@ietf)
> the MLM does mungling
> - abolishing policy quarantine
> That is: p=reject; pct=0 gets almost the same as p=none, except that there
> is recommendatiton for MLM to mungle From:.

I'm a little worried about this, but maybe it's just The Way Of Things.  We
had intended the publication of a DMARC policy to be a message from the
ADMD owning a domain name to any ADMD receiving mail from it about how to
handle unauthenticated or unaligned messages.  It's actually morphed on its
own into also being a message to any MLM that might be in the way to take
particular rewriting actions.  I wonder if the standards track version of
DMARC should explicitly take this into account.