Seth, your choice of options requires a discussion of the merits of ARC, which you want us to defer until after the charter is done. I have fear that including prejorative language in the charter now, will be used as a justication later to foreclose other outcomes.
As with DMARCbis, we have a WG participation problem. As far as I can tell, none of the 50 largest email filtering vendors are present. Murray has already noted that none of the MLM vendors appear to be present. Google and Outlook are being represented by John Levine instead of themselves. Terminating ARC should require one of two data points: ARC is clearly harmful to some people without evident remedy, or ARC is useful to nobody. The latter can be disproven with one dissent, and I am one dissenter. I am willing to listen to any assertions of harm, as those need to be addressed. This discussion is a little surprising to me because I asked about ARC effectiveness during DMARCbis, when I was still a skeptic, and the feedback was uniformly positive There are very big differences between evaluators, depending whether their daily volume is measured in thousands, millions, or billions. I absolutely filter based on mailing list subscription issues because we regularly receive traffic where GoogleGrouos or Groups Outlook.com are used as a spam vector. Those who consider ARC to be useless are not inconvenienced by those who think it useful. We say that IETF is not the Internet police, so why is IETF trying to shut down a protocol that some participants are voluntarily using? This proposal continues ti look like a political move by DKIM2, and that type of move should be ignored DF On Fri, Feb 6, 2026, 9:18 AM Seth Blank <[email protected]> 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]
