On April 1, 2024 11:05:02 PM UTC, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>It appears that Todd Herr <[email protected]> said:
>>Issue 144 has been opened for the question of what to say about ARC (RFC
>>8617) in the context of indirect mail flows, a la Murray's example text
>>from this post
>><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/v5NMVIZqvRuEfopf7gc0Q1i4Ywo/>:
>>
>>"One possible mitigation to problem X is [ARC], which provides for a
>>mechanism to demonstrate 'chain-of-custody' of a message. However, use of
>>ARC is nascent, as is industry experience with it in connection with DMARC."
>
>Generally OK but nascent seems wrong for something that was published five
>years ago. How about "ARC has found limited acceptance in the industy so
>it is unclear how much help it will provide in practice."
Isn't it more accurate to say that ARC is an incomplete solution. To use ARC
you also need a list of domains you trust not to lie about their ARC results (I
think this is the primary blocker to more adoption).
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
