Just to chime in, Gmail is using ARC and it has already provided a large amount of value for the indirect flow problem. Especially, since other major providers and a number of forwarders are adding ARC headers that provide us useful visibility into the previous hops and allow us to make more intelligent decisions. I can share that a number of escalations for problems that arose out of indirect flows have been resolved by use of ARC headers.
I would love to see more mailingLists add ARC headers. But as stands today it is already providing a reasonably large amount of value. On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:48 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:05 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >"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." >> > > Sure. I used "nascent" because I don't feel like we have seen even basic > statements about how useful it's been in solving the indirect flows > problem, at scale or otherwise, so it's nascent in the same sense that it > is not well-established. > > -MSK, p11g > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
