Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Seth Blank <> Mon, 07 December 2020 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732643A0C00 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:49:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsrAZSQieI6k for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD2DE3A0B75 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r24so2684265vsg.10 for <>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:49:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=quANhAPwB/vki/kkOImSz7cvAtckO+tp/6BJdlAxD3A=; b=I5VFAgVU+a7dP6nWacp6dh7VxgB4HELGfA//yQJs2DhPSFghzwU9CT9Lg8LtwH7ArD tOvwXMvqJHr9QRnlApIT1Aaq4dd+wifWarRanxN6TagOx4tTMR8ojH4QX5P9/JkV6CtB weEnNyjGprw68Dj2mhkdJrtUb3XXjbDUGW/+RwD2xfXgPrjlwvV72L/n9T2Ga/DwuHrU xoJss9BJA4trEUuSZijApA1Y+BxflMvLP4W0xNa4mQ5RdK11mJzhhtU6U/gmA45rz7VN S5xSW3SIiJLNaV3tdauxK6bVzVXJoI/ws5SZVJ3YxPATJQLfYl2jeldDM/ud8k8BALYy 91xQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=quANhAPwB/vki/kkOImSz7cvAtckO+tp/6BJdlAxD3A=; b=uLk1ggg4rNjP55Wmc8uKirdn6D49rjW+0zWxvhUxLzXP6KTbsffCcqhuCqEbTPLy4v xqd3DCoCloILFv5IS2VKxiGmExOFxyo+8PDbf3y4wUh+SLdmqrA74C7ZfIJv7KZsOFFc +bIeytmJjjKvl9DYuCM5Za8ZX056wVQuwiTMQde0lfRMBUWCW+PHZ5FhvSEs2SWusgZt 7DEm8KG64+UXL114gEEEIPmga2nVC10IAfn6mOTgw4hCoOA2Tb+iQq1Ua20Gq9JujS3y CeIal8EHBGNYSD92FdpUmcr89exO+F3NWINikx9Dwcq2kquZO9MQ8sJipVVm/fMJAa/a Ti6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jAfx1jDhKmkTgsFsYahesW0eyOBGVP6faXyfXNfHptk76c+gj 5MnY9XnmKJXPtkWdIKwdH9fRlCUUN+8ldLrWJoh5vm5LMsg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZiSV/BmGI/bBaFHk/swL0Fq4tGnnqM5PuUDMhBssE8F5Us/lzMFdixEoTh+oFr//4RxuZmQH+HW8Fxoryn4s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:2427:: with SMTP id l7mr12146738vsi.43.1607381340060; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:49:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Seth Blank <>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:48:48 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Cc: Douglas Foster <>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.ord, Kurt Andersen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb132c05b5e7a156"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 22:49:05 -0000

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:28 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 10:46 AM Douglas Foster <
>> wrote:
>> I ask the chairs to formally endorse development of an alternative to ARC
>> as an additional approach to the mailing list problem...
> So you are asking the WG to go back to our second milestone and put the
> current work on milestone 3 on hold?

This thread is now extremely off topic.

As Kurt rightly mentioned, addressing indirect mailflow was a WG milestone
that has been completed. We are now in another phase of work -- driving
DMARC to a standards track document -- which has open tickets and editors
waiting on WG consensus. This conversation around indirect mail streams,
which the chairs had hoped would run its own course, is now counter

The Chairs are officially calling discussion of indirect mail flows OFF
TOPIC until all open bis tickets in trac are resolved. After all tickets
are resolved, but prior to WGLC on the bis documents, we will return to a
discussion of indirect mail flow and where ARC stands. For now, move on to
open tickets.

Seth, for the Chairs


*Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
*p:* 415.273.8818

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.