> On Jul 6, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the case of a direct mail flow, the receiver has all the needed > information from the SMTP connection and A-R payload to create a report. None > of this information is present once a message arrives at a receiver in an > indirect manner. > > I would strenuously argue the charter's call for "eliminating the DMARC's > effects on indirect mail flows" requires that reporting - which is the > fundamental feedback mechanism for a sender - work properly under said fixes. > This is impossible for a receiver to do without ARC passing the information > along. And ARC has this transmission mechanism in its AAR, but we need to > make sure the appropriate information is in it.
It might be useful to show what the desired DMARC reporting looks like for email flows where ARC is at play. For example, maybe "override" just shows "arc_at_work" with existing fields identifying the last hop (like is done today). In that case reporting works properly. If there's a more robust presentation that is wanted, it would help the list to see an example. Maybe then people could follow along to see why the inclusion of selectors is necessary from a DMARC reporting perspective. =- Tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
