Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC

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 intelligent decisions. I can share that a number of escalations for
problems that arose out of indirect flows have been resolved by use of ARC
headers.

I would love to see more mailingLists add ARC headers. But as stands today
it is already providing a reasonably large amount of value.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:48 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:05 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> 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 but nascent seems wrong for something that was published five
>> years ago.  How about "ARC has found limited acceptance in the industy so
>> it is unclear how much help it will provide in practice."
>>
>
> Sure.  I used "nascent" because I don't feel like we have seen even basic
> statements about how useful it's been in solving the indirect flows
> problem, at scale or otherwise, so it's nascent in the same sense that it
> is not well-established.
>
> -MSK, p11g
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

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