On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 4:55 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> What are those uncontrolled elements, beyond mailing lists and > >> enterprise relays? Dot-forward settings don't arise spontaneously, and > >> usually require user verification and consent. And the statistics > we've > >> seen suggest that "the mailing list problem" affects a minimal portion > of > >> email traffic. Therefore, if each subscription is managed individually, > >> it is not true that the number of potential forwarders is so vast and > >> dynamic that maintaining a list is unrealistic. Simply, no one has > said > >> how to do it. > > > It seems to me that any system that seeks to identify a list > subscription > > or forwarder with high accuracy relies on either (a) humans to be error > > free and never lazy, and/or (b) lists to all behave according to some > > standard that doesn't exist. > > I don't understand (a). What do you mean? > I think in your proposal above, "managed individually" is doing rather a lot of lifting, and the idea of "maintaining a list" even with automation will approach an acceptable level of reliability only at great cost which most non-giant operators can't afford. If I as a Gmail user have to do some manual extra step every time I subscribe to a list someplace else, I'm going to forget or get it wrong, or complain about complexity around what I think should be a simple thing. If I expect Gmail to do that for me, then we're relying on automations based on heuristics and/or a standard of identifying lists that doesn't exist. But all of this is a massive digression into extending or evolving ARC, which is not the question before us. > So, the standard is DMARC, which exists, but mailing lists don't behave > according to it. A document proposing to put aside ARC should at least > include > some text aimed at putting an end to such naively dissonant behavior that > mailing lists perpetuate "because that's how they've worked since the > 1970s." > Dissonant with what? It's not dissonant with the standards. This is a political argument that has been rehashed time and time again about whether DMARC proponents had the right in 2015 to arrive on the scene and start telling list operators that they're doing it wrong. I suggest that this is the wrong place to start that again. > > Is there any evidence that there would be momentum if ARC development > were > > to be given a venue? I don't think I've seen any, but maybe you're > privy > > to other conversations. > > As you know, the draft I proposed was rejected because "the working group > is > winding down with the bis documents moving through the IESG process". > However, > if any other proposal ever attempts to solve the mailing list problem, it > will > face the same scenario. Yes, until DKIM2. But this process should not be > a > means of burning bridges in order to make its arrival unavoidable or more > desirable. It should produce an honest statement of the situation. > On that last sentence, I agree. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
