On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, Jim Fenton wrote:
Of course not. That's just the tiny gorillas stamping their teensy feet. Why would anyone expect that the people publishing that flag actually understood what it meant? Many will just turn it on because someone said it's "more secure."FWIW, I don’t think a lot of the people publishing p=reject understood the implications of that, either. This is not significantly more arcane.
Then I think we agree. There's no difference from p=reject and p=reject-I-really-mean it.
... If the recipient domain accepts modifications by zero-reputation intermediaries (because there are so many of them, after all)
I wouldn't call that a reasonable implementation of ARC. The set of hosts that are likely to send you mail with interesting ARC chains is relatively small, and I don't think it changes very fast. Most of the hosts that send you non-spam mail aren't going to send you mail that needs ARC.
If you're setting up a new mailing list host or forwarder, getting yourself into whatever whitelists people use will be somewhat painful but there's nothing new about that.
I’d be interested in other opinions on this. Or whether this is a fundamental problem with ARC.
I'd certainly be interested in hearing how people plan to compile and maintain their lists of ARC-worthy hosts.
Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
