I support Trent's charter. Regards, Al Iverson
On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 2:41 PM Ken O'Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support Trent’s charter. > > Ken. > > > On Mon 9 Mar 2026 at 14:50, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Let's come back to the charter, please. >> >> To those who chimed in on this thread, it seems to me that most of you are >> OK with the charter as Trent proposed it, due to the resistance to Ale's >> proposed language. Can you please be explicit on if you think Trent's >> proposed charter is adequate for the sake of determining consensus? >> >> We can talk merits of ARC and how to conclude the experiment AFTER a charter >> is locked in and approved by the IESG. >> >> Seth, as Chair >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 10:15 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, ARC has been tested, but without any authorization component. This >>> allows >>> us to identify the forwarder and learn its filtering approach, but without >>> knowing whether the forwarding is authorized, this information is useless. >>> >>> Different solutions, such as DKIM2, are supposedly better than ARC, but, >>> again, >>> they don't provide any authorization system. Therefore, they probably won't >>> solve the mailing list problem either. And they won't be coming anytime >>> soon. >>> >>> I'm asking the WG to consider a simple authorization scheme which could >>> address >>> the forwarding issue. This draft was not considered at the time because >>> Phase >>> II, "Specification of DMARC Improvements to Support Indirect Mail Flows", >>> was >>> considered complete with the publication of ARC. >>> >>> In this context, once authorization is granted, ARC appears to be slightly >>> preferable to DKIM for authentication, thanks to the addition of the AAR >>> field. >>> This is not /focusing/ on ARC, but simply using it for what it's worth. >>> >>> >>> Best >>> Ale >>> >>> On Mon 09/Mar/2026 12:49:58 +0100 Laura Atkins wrote: >>> > +1 to Alex’s message. There are ongoing efforts to address the damage >>> > DMARC has done to legitimate indirect mail flows. ARC has been tested and >>> > no one working with large mail flows seems to think that it’s a viable >>> > solution. Focusing on ARC will prevent other solutions from being tested >>> > and tried. It’s time to give up on ARC and look at different solutions. >>> > >>> > laura >>> > >>> >> On 9 Mar 2026, at 11:44, Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Doug, >>> >> >>> >> I’m not sure why you equate lack of support for ARC with lack of >>> >> interest in solving the “mailing list” problem. I think there are many >>> >> parties interested in solving that case, and they’ve determined that ARC >>> >> isn’t that solution. Or perhaps, isn’t the solution they want due to >>> >> other issues that come with implementation (which are enumerated in >>> >> Trent’s draft). I’d say based on the interest in DKIM2, there are >>> >> parties interested in resolving that particular problem. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Alex Brotman >>> >> Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy >>> >> Comcast >>> >> >>> >> From: Douglas Foster <[email protected] >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 7:15 AM >>> >> To: Laura Atkins <[email protected] >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >> Cc: IETF DMARC WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Proposed Recharter to Conclude the ARC >>> >> Experiment >>> >> >>> >> I would certainly like to believe that evaluators need no advice because >>> >> they know what they are doing, but the evidence suggests otherwise. >>> >> >>> >> The "mailbox problem" indicates that evaluators are not acting in the >>> >> interest of their users, by blocking acceptable messages that users >>> >> want. It also indicates, indirectly, that evaluators are failing their >>> >> users because they are configured to accept some malicious impersonation >>> >> that they should be blocking. >>> >> >>> >> Doug Foster >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:45 AM Laura Atkins <[email protected] >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 8 Mar 2026, at 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected] >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I think we're going in circles here. You're saying there might be value >>> >> in ARC worth pursuing, and we won't know unless we try. But for "try" >>> >> to happen, there need to be people interested in putting in the work to >>> >> get to the answer. I'm not the one that gets to make that call, but I >>> >> think there's a dearth of interest in doing so. >>> >> >>> >> Putting it in the charter doesn't guarantee people will show up to do >>> >> the work. In fact, part of chartering a WG is asking "Who will do this >>> >> work if we charter it?" and, well, I personally think the answer is >>> >> plain. >>> >> >>> >> Following on to this. Big mailbox providers have done the work to >>> >> implement ARC signing on their mail. We’ve heard from a few major >>> >> mailbox providers they have looked at using the data on the inbound. >>> >> They aren’t interested in working on more experiments in ARC. >>> >> >>> >> I don’t think there’s anything here and we should just end the ARC >>> >> experiment. >>> >> >>> >> laura >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> The Delivery Expert >>> >> >>> >> Laura Atkins >>> >> Word to the Wise >>> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> Delivery hints and commentary: http://www.wordtothewise.com/blog >>> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.wordtothewise.com/blog__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Dln8pxYfwtpEt76WgweiNBTmH9WTb6Wv426tK9l6CB3qC-WZ6H5QG_ZYfVe5RsJ0jADdlwQmwaJ7n7p_O-7N_05kTMLoNCQ$> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >> <mailto:[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] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] -- Al Iverson // 312-725-0130 // Chicago http://www.spamresource.com // Deliverability http://www.aliverson.com // All about me https://xnnd.com/calendar // Book my calendar _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
