About ARC:
When evaluating a forwarded message, I want to know the pre-forwarding
values of the 4 key identifiers:
- Source IP
- Helo
- MailFrom
- From
(Reverse DNS is also important, but can be computed at evaluation time.)
The pre-forwarding identifiers are needed to apply a correct sender
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:59 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> [...] the idea of demanding all lists the world over start munging From
> fields (or whatever mutation we claim is now mandatory) will not happen in
> short order no matter how much we wish it would.
>
Just to be clear, my point here
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:27 AM Douglas Foster <
dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Murray has said that we cannot impose obligations on mailing lists,
> because he does not perceive them as DMARC participants.
>
I don't recall saying that. My perspective is that the "lists are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Douglas Foster writes
>Does "Trusted Attestation" have any envisioned implementation other
>than an ARC Set?
yes ... you may have a relationship with another company which means
that you trust them to do DMARC related checks
Does "Trusted Attestation" have any envisioned implementation other than an
ARC Set? Murray has said that we cannot impose obligations on mailing
lists, because he does not perceive them as DMARC participants. But to my
mind, "Trusted Attestation" means that the mailing list SHOULD provide an
On Sun 30/Jul/2023 17:20:59 + Barry Leiba wrote:
I think Richard’s suggestion would be a fine addition to what’s there now,
but not a replacement. I would really prefer MUST in Richard’s text over
the SHOULD, given the “trusted attestation”.
Agreed. MUST whitelist, otherwise forwarding
