Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7A43A07C8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGcp5dRxhCG3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AB643A033F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com with SMTP id i62so3325981vkb.7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Lp0xRLkQ6P9XjddYIRgMo2hiBJgTWRJQFZrbxX6u3Fo=; b=s+E8L1FzUNCN1vF+x6llyfi+LckvpmQuEnn80/UQpL0eM4cXwg2Rf/ELIyxJepuRiO VMqJ/eqK+lFAZHqpYB5JxAln5di2mFOALpnZGXmpWD0/gdAzirTWyH8jxcbWAJZ8D0aN lbJSRjhpaUIZtB2EhMOo3YJ5SjSN4bIrNfPWBPCxkQ5Mz7rumjHlGVxoL1y2o9ieCHfk 3WimK82rp94SiKMOqPrDM1PFaaPFCvjY94BU5YPaszaC3N8rVVulBwN99+bFAWrkATW4 GqPk6dbb7uR03l2cG2nk16wYZs3DcSrpufbS+eNfmUFjmVzIKAHjMCYpIXxUXqYPvUv6 ilog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Lp0xRLkQ6P9XjddYIRgMo2hiBJgTWRJQFZrbxX6u3Fo=; b=gWeqxO+3FzrQHSLVwaMXvtxd8P0eD/eNFCRvzLKwqvhO3g9aZT29kOH+nmdmJkqfdR P5+h37aPJyAIfug1pGYo8OXoKDZ2U4RXCxlEJfbtlCTSJWSABXBEuUxINrMX37cEEkrm JwGX3HGftd4KAJvhb9H0NIjGXD70FU0pjm/BqwXgLuXa61ostZq5GNX74i+svL+uL2sK M12DdeZCL5EPUhIyVcYbH2Y2uyi57vCOr3BO/DOOyGZalWjTJavofSsQhKlnVtMSR8p0 X+YP8VnoZK0B7rC3BmFVI5PlhgVI9jF+xYxyBCNscvYFysDZGrLHR2kWg/qavPyRdOA1 BOIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531iyA7cCROqBfcZa8ZM2NO0JkvEB1IbEj53AHdmpSqSKrt1TXhW IjRe6inSnLxWAW4F/A70qZC3GZg2q+DKLb8vhCY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmgzPjauj1AN6F9qBmmte6htvkItEmGsE9UsDvF8qpmZXTaDhNeWnvwWAu6zKcPASEnM1DqYsnZDZvEvdxNiU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:1b82:: with SMTP id b124mr13618448vkb.5.1607365954575; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:32:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <28759E60-3A00-4D25-9490-34495B96EE10@bluepopcorn.net> <9c23d850-4164-1320-1c25-40554c1f64b@taugh.com> <A7E1018B-F6B1-46F3-8FEF-69FDC744DA4A@bluepopcorn.net> <d8dc2644-cbcf-d3a1-c5fb-46fdf5bec819@taugh.com> <CAH48ZfxWWxSh3j3YnA4eD4Y5Ep4GfVDr22WX1MCM4-tcVK0UpQ@mail.gmail.com> <b5774a04-fbee-8d23-d760-0380d58a9fb7@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwZ+KFrPzScr6c-tMOd2nCV=v1Mf71h0fWBUV9_ZZ-k6Cw@mail.gmail.com> <be9ddc32-8709-0990-c663-5c625efd6b1f@mtcc.com> <CAL0qLwYNzkt7afY4ssRKtgpfBSQXxcyuNTQ++7QkUaO0GA9=Kw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4XoYdmquQBdJ246Y_ca2tpqbYS680A6tKExXX1UzGStJYenA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4XoYdmquQBdJ246Y_ca2tpqbYS680A6tKExXX1UzGStJYenA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:32:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYLvtvmhWW8gBkHUBhV5F1NXZyaFMm-aTh_dQKdOAo0sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bf1fcb05b5e40cb7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/E8zULNlPwebHuymPzYRJfoV4jw4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 18:32:47 -0000

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:05 AM Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've asked here and in other places that validators/receivers consuming
> ARC headers provide data regarding the results of such consumption. To date
> we have not seen any data provided by participants in the ARC experiment.
> It may be that ARC is a useful standard or it may not be. So far I'm seeing
> a lot of supposition and speculation but no useful data for evaluation.
>

I wonder if we might ask our compatriots at M3AAWG if they might be willing
or able to undertake a data collection project in this area.  Most of the
ARC proponents are also participants there.

-MSK