Hello Hector,
you state, that a domain owner can request p=quarantine over p=reject because
of concers of false positives.
Why shall one have concers about false positives, but will not be willing to
fix them?
I do repeat myself, but the way to fix the false positives is to introduce
On 7/31/2019 11:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:37 AM Tim Wicinski mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
From our end user point of view, I'm against abolishing
quarantine, even with its current shortcomings.
Why's that?
-MSK, also hatless
My opinion.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:37 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> From our end user point of view, I'm against abolishing quarantine, even
> with its current shortcomings.
>
Why's that?
-MSK, also hatless
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
On Sun 28/Jul/2019 12:49:12 +0200 Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> The penalty could be implemented with reply
> 550 Message failed DMARC validation and was delivered in the Junk folder of
> the recipient
>
Usually, receiving MTAs drop the message after replying 5xx.
> If an ESP wants to forget
>From our end user point of view, I'm against abolishing quarantine, even
with its current shortcomings.
Tim
(no hat)
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:48 AM Дилян Палаузов
wrote:
> Hello Alessandro,
>
> abolishing policy quarantine means with p=reject that for failed messages
> there should be some
Hello Alessandro,
abolishing policy quarantine means with p=reject that for failed messages there
should be some penalty and the receiving
site decides on the form of the penalty, e.g. quarantine or reject.
In fact I see the DMARC specification updated to use consistently some neutral
word,
On Thu 25/Jul/2019 14:53:55 +0200 Steve Atkins wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:06 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:45 PM Steve Atkins wrote:
>> > It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject;
>> > pct=0" the way we intended
> On Jul 25, 2019, at 12:06 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:45 PM Steve Atkins wrote:
> > It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject;
> > pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".
>
> It's semi-explicitly defined that way in
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:07 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:45 PM Steve Atkins
> wrote:
>
>> > It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject;
>> pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".
>>
>> It's semi-explicitly defined that way in
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:45 PM Steve Atkins
wrote:
> > It's interesting that the industry has decided to interpret "p=reject;
> pct=0" the way we intended "p=quarantine; pct=100".
>
> It's semi-explicitly defined that way in the RFC, isn't it?
>
If so, we should fix it because (a) I don't
> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> 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".
It's semi-explicitly defined that way in the RFC, isn't it?
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
wrote:
> And then, for p=none or any equivalent form of it, there
Hello,
(I repeat what was said here, just in case)
As it was pointed out, p=quarantine; pct=0; is the same as p=none; and
p=reject; ptc=0; is the same as p=quarantine;
pct=100, therefore p=quarantine; pct=0 is not the same as p=reject; pct=0
currently, per
Hello Murray,
Yes, rewriting depends on policy. Look at From: headers for this mailing
list (dmarc@ietf.org), you can see it only munges From address for
domain with strict DMARC policy (if RFC5322.From domain publishes
"quarantine" or "reject" policy). This is very common behavior, it can
also
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 12:25 PM Vladimir Dubrovin wrote:
> Nope, I mean 2 different things.
>
> 1. Why quarantine is useful (with pct=0).
>
> For example this mailing list (dmarc@ietf.org) performs From rewrite (aka
> From munging), e.g. dubro...@corp.mail.ru is replaced with
>
On 6/15/2019 6:13 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2019, at 9:25 PM, wrote:
Hello,
p=reject; pct=0 is equivalent to p=quarantine; pct=0.
I've not been following this thread too closely so I might
be missing something, but under current DMARC spec I don't
think that's so - see section
> On Jun 15, 2019, at 9:25 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> p=reject; pct=0 is equivalent to p=quarantine; pct=0.
I've not been following this thread too closely so I might be missing
something, but under current
DMARC spec I don't think that's so - see section 6.6.4.
If I've
Hello,
p=reject; pct=0 is equivalent to p=quarantine; pct=0.
The rest of this email is about (against) handling p=reject and p=quarantine
differently. Namely, where a server
rejects on p=reject and “quarantines” on p=quarantine.
There are more examples, all under the category p=quarantine,
On 6/14/2019 5:58 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
Hello Ken,
effectively I proposed handling p=reject and p=quarantine the same way.
..
Lets have an example for p=quaranite:
majordomo@domain is an address where commands are sent and the software
receiving the
command always sends an answer, even
On Fri 14/Jun/2019 18:25:02 +0200 Vladimir Dubrovin wrote:
> If you are implementing DMARC for a new domain (let's say example.org), you
> usually start with "p=none". With p=none you receive reports for failed DMARC
> for different lists, like ietf.org. Before switching to stronger policy
>
Hello Ken,
effectively I proposed handling p=reject and p=quarantine the same way. Shall
I read in your answer, that failed DMARC
validation is weighted differently in the overall spam evaluation, for p=reject
and for p=quarantine?
> A use case for p=quarantine is that when deploying DMARC
Nope, I mean 2 different things.
1. Why quarantine is useful (with pct=0).
For example this mailing list (dmarc@ietf.org) performs From rewrite
(aka From munging), e.g. dubro...@corp.mail.ru is replaced with
dubrovin=40corp.mail...@dmarc.ietf.org. It's because corp.mail.ru has a
strict DMARC
On 6/12/2019 9:37 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
On 12 Jun 2019, at 14:28, Hector Santos
(o) Reject with 55x before DATA state
Given that the 5322.from is crucial for DMARC, and the 5322.from is
transmitted after DATA, how can you evaluate DMARC before DATA?
When SPF is taking into account.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:38 AM Laura Atkins
wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 14:28, Hector Santos
> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2019 5:00 PM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
>
>
> How about, deleting policy Quarantine and instead rephrasing policy Reject:
>
> It is up to the receiving server if it rejects messages
Dear all,
when DMARC passes, there is no difference between p=reject and p=quarantine.
When DMARC fails validation, this means extra work for humans. This work can
be done by the sending or by the receiving
organization.
With p=quaratine, the sending organization (domain owner) indicates,
25 matches
Mail list logo
