This is more in regards to the Recommended Usage draft than the ARC spec
itself (and possibly this has been answered elsewhere before).
Is a message sender allowed (or perhaps even advised) to be part of the ARC
chain as the first set of the chain?
--
Martijn van der Lee
_
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Martijn van der Lee <
martijn=40dmarcanalyzer@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> This is more in regards to the Recommended Usage draft than the ARC spec
> itself (and possibly this has been answered elsewhere before).
>
> Is a message sender allowed (or perhaps even ad
Perhaps "advised" was a wrong choice of words. I understand that ARC makes
no additional demands on the sender. But would it be beneficial or harmful
(or neutral) for the sender to do so anyway?
I can imagine validators taking note of ARC capability of an ADMD for
reputation tracking. If an email
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 07:38 Martijn van der Lee
wrote:
> ... would it be beneficial or harmful (or neutral) for the sender to do so
> anyway?
>
> I can imagine validators taking note of ARC capability of an ADMD for
> reputation tracking. If an email is send by a sender known to start the ARC
> c
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 07:38 Martijn van der Lee
> wrote:
>
>> ... would it be beneficial or harmful (or neutral) for the sender to do
>> so anyway?
>>
>
Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 explicitly call out that it's safe to Seal. As
Kurt mentio
On 7/12/2018 12:58 AM, Martijn van der Lee wrote:
Is a message sender allowed (or perhaps even advised) to be part of the
ARC chain as the first set of the chain?
Just for clarity, do you mean the author or the originator?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Kurt Andersen (b)
> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting thoughts. Starting an ARC series at the initial ADMD could
>> give such a signal but I can think of easier ways to do so - perhaps a "I
>> support ARC" bumper sticke
In article
you write:
>Given that we've settled on Experimental status, I propose this gets tabled
>until that's published. The experiment will establish what benefit ARC can
>provide, which I think is the most important output of this work. The
>change being suggested here appears to be one of
7601bis looks good for WGLC
Tim
>From my high tech gadget
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 23:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
>
>> On July 12, 2018 12:20:39 AM UTC, John Levine wrote:
>> In article <2940516.WEBi8fTYBz@kitterma-e6430> you write:
>>> Is the list of EAI affected components of the field co
