Re: [dmarc-ietf] Call for Adoption: DMARC Use of the RFC5322.Sender Header Field

[Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]>]

> Il 06/10/2020 01:57 Jesse Thompson <jesse.thompson=[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> 
> e.g. I find it hard to imagine that an ISP would have the willingness to exempt a boutique MLM for all of their customers, so ARC, in and of itself, doesn't really help MLMs move away from From munging.  Does it make sense to suggest that in order for ARC to succeed, then ISPs need to offer a way for their customers to define their trusted intermediaries?  What if the ISP chooses not to offer that?  Do they "support ARC" in a meaningful way?

>From a policy standpoint, it is troubling to imagine that each email system would define their own list of trusted ARC intermediaries. This is a recipe for centralization and oligopoly, as most people would just create a shortlist of a few well known big intermediaries, and any smaller entity trying to compete with them (including non-profit operations, community servers, self-hosted mailing lists etc) would be at a serious disadvantage. There is also the problem of keeping these lists up to date once installed. It would be much better if there were a few professional/community efforts to build reliable and complete lists of good and bad ARC intermediaries, like for spam.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[e-mail] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy