I would like to discuss whether dkim2 will be a sufficient replacement for ARC, as that seems unlikely to me Is that topic open now? It will also permits discussion of use cases, which speaks to current utility.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2026, 7:06 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 8:27 PM Douglas Foster < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > There's a false premise here, which is that a contrary existence proof is > enough to declare a motion dead. But we operate on consensus here, not > unanimity; if consensus exists to change the status of ARC to "Historic", > then a single opposing position isn't enough to change the story once the > associated concerns have been discussed and addressed (which does not > equate to "the point ceded"). > > The premise that's been put forward is that ARC at Experimental does harm > of some sort, chiefly by creating a false notion that it's broadly useful > and thus compelling implementations likely to provide marginal value, if > any. If that's false, we should do something to clear the air. Are you > perhaps suggesting that ARC is useful enough that it warrants > standardization instead of deprecation? Or perhaps that it should stay at > Experimental longer as there's a chance we'll learn something further from > it? > > A decade of experimentation is a long time to wait for something > meaningful to result. > > >> 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. >> > > Are there other small operators that find this output useful? Why aren't > we hearing from them? What are people at M3AAWG hearing? > > >> 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. >> > > I'm confused by this assertion. DKIM2 claims that its own results would > obviate the need for ARC. I don't understand how that makes this a > political move so much as a pragmatic one, at least eventually. > > -MSK >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
