Hi,
In this case, I'd support (2). It does the lesser damage.
Best
Ale
On Fri 06/Feb/2026 15:18:13 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
All-- please keep discussion on topic. We are discussing whether to
recharter the DMARC WG to conclude ARC or not, NOT the details of Trent's
draft or ARC itself. We'll leave this thread open until Friday, 2/13, at
5pm PT.
Charter proposal:
https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/blob/main/dmarc/charter.md
Trent's document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adams-arc-experiment-conclusion/
Our options as outlined are:
1. Take this document on now in a rechartered DMARC WG to conclude ARC.
2. Shutter DMARC WG as intended, and take on this document via AD
sponsorship or some other more directed approach.
3. Let this document be published with DKIM2 as part of a cluster of
documents concluding ARC are shifting to DKIM2 as explicit successor.
So far, there has been some support for (1) and limited support for (3).
There has yet been no support for (2).
Please address only which option you prefer with respect to rechartering
the DMARC working group. We'll close this thread out next Friday, 2/13, at
5pm PT.
Seth, chairin'
On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 8:03 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri 06/Feb/2026 09:27:20 +0100 Baptiste Carvello wrote:
Then, assuming that every receiver is an authorized forwarder (which is
an acceptable assumption in the common case), the whole forwarding trail
can be followed and verified.
This assumption is wrong! Forwarding requires agreement.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
