Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents

2016-11-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, October 17, 2016 07:18:47 PM John Levine wrote: > >Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the > >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, > >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for > >production. >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents

2016-10-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday, October 17, 2016 07:18:47 PM John Levine wrote: > >Most of the recent work has been in regard to coordinating and testing the > >four (4) known implementations of the ARC spec (Google, AOL, dkimpy, > >OpenARC). They are each in various stages of completion/readiness for > >production. >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents

2016-10-15 Thread Barry Leiba
> More generally, I think the document needs quite a bit of polish. The core > material seems to be there but I've got some qualms with its organization, > flow, etc. This may also be contributing to a false veneer of complexity. > When I'm done the first round of coding, I'll route some energy

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Progress of ARC documents

2016-10-15 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Working group: > Have all of you reviewed the ARC documents? Does the dearth of > discussion of them mean they're close to ready? > I've been working on an open source implementation. It consists largely of