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

On Thu 10/Dec/2020 02:23:10 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: On 12/9/20 4:04 PM, Brandon Long wrote: When you switch to p=quarantine pct=0, no one should apply quarantine (so it's equivalent to p=none), but Groups will start rewriting, thereby removing all of those failures from your reports.  Yes

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

On 12/9/20 4:04 PM, Brandon Long wrote: When you switch to p=quarantine pct=0, no one should apply quarantine (so it's equivalent to p=none), but Groups will start rewriting, thereby removing all of those failures from your reports.  Yes, you won't see those messages in the reports at all a

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

On 12/3/20 8:21 AM, Todd Herr wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:28 AM Laura Atkins > wrote: > > > >> On 3 Dec 2020, at 06:03, Jim Fenton > > wrote: >> >> On 2 Dec 2020, at 1:47, Laura Atkins wrote: >> >>> p=quarantine is

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

On 12/8/2020 6:24 AM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:> Hello, I do no see the point of having all the discussions here, as nobody is capable to read and understarstand all written emails in their whole quantity. I personally do not follow the discussions anymore, apart from reading the subjects… +1 Ma

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

Hello, I do no see the point of having all the discussions here, as nobody is capable to read and understarstand all written emails in their whole quantity.  I personally do not follow the discussions anymore, apart from reading the subjects… On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 17:55 -0800, Brandon Long wrote:

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

In article you write: >Anyways, +1 to keeping p=quarantine as a concept, but willing to go along >with the consensus on naming. I'm modestly in favor of keeping p=quarantine as a feature but utterly opposed to changing the keywords such as "p=quarantine" in the DMARC record. It's fine to improv

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

In article you write: >Maybe _discardable_ should be used instead. > >Why do I have a feeling of deja vu? Gee, I can't imagine. R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

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

Post Scriptum: DMARC can say one of two things: -- all mails for a domain are DKIM-signed and aligned, according to the domain owner -- not all mails for a domain are DKIM-signed and aligned (e.g. when the DMARC policy is absent, or p=none) according to the domain owner Does the DMARC specificatio

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

On 12/2/20 10:12 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: On 2 Dec 2020, at 6:09, Dave Crocker wrote: *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 si

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

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:28 AM Laura Atkins wrote: > > > On 3 Dec 2020, at 06:03, Jim Fenton wrote: > > On 2 Dec 2020, at 1:47, Laura Atkins wrote: > > p=quarantine is quite useful, particularly for those folks who are trying > to get to a p=reject state. > > In practice, senders who publish p=n

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

On 12/2/2020 10:12 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: The problem is that /quarantine/ and /reject/ are imperative verbs. As I said, I suspect that changing the vocabulary is not operationally practical  at this point.  It would be great for the folk already using DMARC to state a willingness to employ al

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

> On 3 Dec 2020, at 06:03, Jim Fenton wrote: > > On 2 Dec 2020, at 1:47, Laura Atkins wrote: > >> p=quarantine is quite useful, particularly for those folks who are trying to >> get to a p=reject state. >> >> In practice, senders who publish p=none don’t find all of the indirect mail >> flo

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

On 2 Dec 2020, at 6:09, Dave Crocker wrote: *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. *r

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

On 2 Dec 2020, at 1:47, Laura Atkins wrote: p=quarantine is quite useful, particularly for those folks who are trying to get to a p=reject state. In practice, senders who publish p=none don’t find all of the indirect mail flows as some mailing lists do nothing to transform the 5322.from addr

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

On 1 Dec 2020, at 17:42, Steven M Jones wrote: On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote: I really hope no casual readers get the impression that DMARC bypasses spam filtering. DMARC evaluations are expected to be independent of spam evaluations. If there's any overlap here, perhaps it would

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:35 PM Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote: > Dotzero writes: > > > p= DID NOT mistakenly choose to use the language of receiver > > actions. p= represents the domain-owner request to the receiver as to > > the disposition of messages which fail to validate. Any reading of > > "conc

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

Dotzero writes: > p= DID NOT mistakenly choose to use the language of receiver > actions. p= represents the domain-owner request to the receiver as to > the disposition of messages which fail to validate. Any reading of > "concern" is supposition on the part of yourself or other self > appointed

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:47 AM Dotzero wrote: > p= DID NOT mistakenly choose to use the language of receiver actions. p= > represents the domain-owner request to the receiver as to the disposition > of messages which fail to validate. Any reading of "concern" is supposition > on the part of yours

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 9:29 AM Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote: > 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

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

On 12/2/2020 6:28 AM, Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote: Perhaps, in retrospect, the p= should have had something like the following values: none untrustworthy invalid p= mistakenly chose to use the language of receiver actions to describe what is actually domain-owner judgements. This is unfortunate, s

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

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 subdomai

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

On 12/2/2020 3:15 AM, Дилян Палаузов wrote: On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 15:55 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:  My email archive indicates it hasn't gotten any discussion at all. This was discussed under the subject “Abolishing DMARC policy quarantine” in June 2019. I see that was quite a lengthy thread

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

On 12/2/2020 5:17 AM, Dotzero wrote: You are absolutely correct. It also doesn't prevent direct domain abuse when someone uses snail mail. I suppose, with some effort, you could have offered an even less useful example.  But since I was being quite serious about the qualification I offered a

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

On 12/2/2020 1:55 AM, Steven M Jones wrote: hen he commanded the tide to halt)" -- the latter phrasing is just /slightly/ too ponderous even for me... Does "requesting" really imply control over the outcome, rather than the expression of a desire? My point is that I think the language MUST N

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

You are absolutely correct. It also doesn't prevent direct domain abuse when someone uses snail mail. Michael Hammer On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:09 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 12/1/2020 7:01 PM, Dotzero wrote: > > DMARC does one thing and one thing only - It mitigates direct domain > > abuse. > >

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

On Wed 02/Dec/2020 03:16:51 +0100 John Levine wrote: I have no idea, my mail system just ignores it so I was wondering what other people do. Zdkimfilter writes a prominent comment in the A-R field. It is up to the MDA to interpret it. The suggested interpretation is to set KEYWORDS='$Junk'

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

Hello, On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 15:55 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > 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. > > process, I s

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

On 12/1/20 7:41 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 12/1/2020 7:03 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: Rather that the Domain Owner is *requesting* whatever the Receiver implements between rejecting the message and putting it in the inbox, and is willing to apply. Yes, but... The premise that an author domain

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

> On 1 Dec 2020, at 23:17, John R Levine wrote: > > We would like to close this ticket by Dec 15, two weeks from now, so short > trenchant comments are welcome. > > #39 proposes that we remove p=quarantine. I propose we leave it in, even if > it > is not very useful, because trying to remove

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

In article <327860af-2fa7-63ee-4b89-6e7e383f3...@crash.com> you write: >> Do you think there was a shared understanding of how p=quarantine >> would be implemented? ... >quarantine." Rather that the Domain Owner is requesting whatever the >Receiver implements between rejecting the message and put

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

On 12/1/2020 7:03 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: Rather that the Domain Owner is requesting whatever the Receiver implements between rejecting the message and putting it in the inbox, and is willing to apply. Yes, but... The premise that an author domain owner can, in any way, direct the message

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

On 12/1/2020 7:01 PM, Dotzero wrote: DMARC does one thing and one thing only - It mitigates direct domain abuse. It mitigates direct domain abuse in the rfc5322.From field. It doesn't mitigate domain abuse anywhere else. d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon

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

On 12/1/20 6:16 PM, John Levine wrote: In article you write: On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote: I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to enable p=reject. p=none, p=quarantine, and the pct= opt

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

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:43 PM Steven M Jones wrote: > On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote: > > > > I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to > > provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to > > enable p=reject. > > p=none, p=quarantine, and th

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

In article you write: >On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote: >> >> I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to >> provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to >> enable p=reject. > >p=none, p=quarantine, and the pct= option were all included so t

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

Doug, please keep your arguments focused on the technical merits of the matter, and do not make dismissive comments about users and their motivations. Those you refer to as nervous nellies are the domain owners who this protocol is designed for, many of whom are legitimately worried about blocking

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

On 12/1/20 4:16 PM, Douglas Foster wrote: I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to enable p=reject. p=none, p=quarantine, and the pct= option were all included so that organizations could set polic

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

I have always assumed that p=quarantine and pct<>100 were included to provide political cover for "Nervous Nellies" who were afraid to enable p=reject. As an example, suppose Nellie makes the decision enable p=quarantine and then goes badly: If the recipient reports reject instead of quarantine,

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

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 confusio

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

We would like to close this ticket by Dec 15, two weeks from now, so short trenchant comments are welcome. #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. R's, John ==