> On 9 Feb 2026, at 18:23, Trent Adams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > All - > > Thanks for considering the issues related to concluding the ARC experiment… > this conversation is exactly what I was hoping we could have to identify the > path forward. Most importantly, we (i.e. the industry) needs clarity about > the status of ARC as its current status is causing no end of confusion. > > From my read on the conversation so far, we’ve essentially identified three > options: >
What about an option 4 (which aligns with option 1): 4) Leave ARC RFC8617 in place, till DKIM2 marks it as Historic as it supercedes it and details how it is better than ARC and solves things that ARC did not solve. Without a "why / lessons learned" it does not make sense to mark something as historic which is in active use. The moment that the big mail providers (who are not vocal here it seems), who have implemented ARC in some way or another and are very likely at least using it to score email based on it, thus using ARC presence as a signal (just like every other spam vector), when those providers drop support, then we'll know that they do not value it. But till DKIM2 is out, in what, another decade??, IMHO, and in my usage, ARC gives a very clear signal to how the forwarding chain is happening, and yes, I am using it to score too and it helps, just like every other signal that mail has, every bit helps. Greets, Jeroen (not a large mail provider, but I do shift a few mails per day :) _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
