Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

Three concrete use-cases where ARC is helpful: 1) SPF Downgrade . We didn't reach consensus for adding auth= tag to DMARC and so SPF Upgrade remains a significant vulnerability for achieving a DMARC pass. Havi

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

Hi Emanuel, On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 1:02 AM Emanuel Schorsch wrote: > Just to chime in, Gmail is using ARC and it has already provided a large > amount of value for the indirect flow problem. Especially, since other > major providers and a number of forwarders are adding ARC headers that > provid

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

On Tue 02/Apr/2024 10:11:08 +0200 Emanuel Schorsch wrote: Just to add some specifics, since August of 2023 we've gone from seeing ~100 ARC sealers of meaningful volume to over 300 as of yesterday. It is extremely important in our experience to have standard ways of identifying indirect flows. Lis

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

Just to add some specifics, since August of 2023 we've gone from seeing ~100 ARC sealers of meaningful volume to over 300 as of yesterday. It is extremely important in our experience to have standard ways of identifying indirect flows. ListId headers and ReceivedHeaders are the bare minimum for Mai

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

Just to chime in, Gmail is using ARC and it has already provided a large amount of value for the indirect flow problem. Especially, since other major providers and a number of forwarders are adding ARC headers that provide us useful visibility into the previous hops and allow us to make more intell

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:05 PM John Levine wrote: > >"One possible mitigation to problem X is [ARC], which provides for a > >mechanism to demonstrate 'chain-of-custody' of a message. However, use of > >ARC is nascent, as is industry experience with it in connection with > DMARC." > > Generally OK

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

On April 1, 2024 11:05:02 PM UTC, John Levine wrote: >It appears that Todd Herr said: >>Issue 144 has been opened for the question of what to say about ARC (RFC >>8617) in the context of indirect mail flows, a la Murray's example text >>from this post >>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

It appears that Todd Herr said: >Issue 144 has been opened for the question of what to say about ARC (RFC >8617) in the context of indirect mail flows, a la Murray's example text >from this post >: > >"One possible mitigati

[dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis

Greetings. Issue 144 has been opened for the question of what to say about ARC (RFC 8617) in the context of indirect mail flows, a la Murray's example text from this post : "One possible mitigation to problem X is [ARC], wh