Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Alessandro Vesely <> Tue, 08 December 2020 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C1F3A0D2F for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:52:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sypjod1A9STG for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:52:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3F03A0D25 for <>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 04:52:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1607431918; bh=Apet6lAi0L03ycYIRINCGDHgv45UF3QI1y/fW02RidE=; l=895; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DP3y/GCoiYWvbO06e+PUN/H5HVwJMoHGa6QdWCOn+RU7Q6cPGOXqgj21i3F8D/iGc NvXksAM34JtMr2FVuXAi8wwhyp808ckdgm8jfZGfvbjfkZZs784pLWLGW2Npkq5G5H HOb4nUqDrc+n+TctxEGs8TXccVGLI+JKMrIsZS2Z0QV6BRRM0ZI9O/GPesFyO
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0CD.000000005FCF76EE.000015EC; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 13:51:58 +0100
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20201207191959.6D772292166A@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:51:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201207191959.6D772292166A@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 12:52:10 -0000

On Mon 07/Dec/2020 20:19:59 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>>    Compared with the use of "l=" tag (Section 8.2 of [RFC6376]), the
>>    fact that footers are written in plain text ...
> They are?  Some are, some are added as MIME parts.

The Content-Type: of the added MIME part, in that case.

> We really need to keep in mind that there is a lot of list management
> software with a vast array of configuration options.

The idea of the draft is that being reversible is a MLM configuration option.

The simplest case is that of lists that don't modify messages at all.  Nothing 
to revert in this case.

We can extend that case so as to include the addition of a simple footer and a 
subject tag.  That way, at least, we can discuss DMARC standardization on a 
DMARC-compliant mailing list.