Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC vs reject

Seth Blank <> Mon, 07 December 2020 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A936B3A0114 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:40:41 -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 V1okBUZlrUwf for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::936]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07393A00D9 for <>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n18so4791276ual.9 for <>; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:40:38 -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=rTA4nfAmBD7NNHqayuB6ibiQEA27HvaVaybc2ozC5jA=; b=WWlFEYOhV4NmkDbduBtdxGaqopZZ/Cs7/EX0FxiZ2zX259yTv0AbP7+AwC/KuwhXK6 DiR7KMP8f7xHhSWpemOVxHq/XA9fGoLjdUHJVaxmAB1OEf1+JTauHIAXPgif3UQzl+OD P6tGhiVsUQ3is3DM1KCj1Y/Ea2GDELPwWH/5FEaolZf7PNJ2ziBJRvEDw1lq/b0y3/A7 FCEJgUuHjysM8AUAgzyJh5l0uYGzw2NbEmSyGfJ7z6rySAxPYgWEUnDE+JkRGzaKseTd 2nUX+NR5VRZ3cpB7vM3554Uwn15O0wfv5rmqwHCw1z9cDPTgWyGJ8pL+bHuFyaqplmI4 Vm7w==
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=rTA4nfAmBD7NNHqayuB6ibiQEA27HvaVaybc2ozC5jA=; b=KNyTpoW4Mqs9lIiJwvP7lGuRYocWaZDcYtZSZuSyf/ZptzpHzEabX7lwXykQ8UvN1Z gRJYYAV7Z5utSzEwYgKSNE1O+8VvqZimXDn0iwlBFchULMu6mN7BObiZPbyl+HM5/RKX x9/wTArXePq4iG4WCJTVo7RCVXi8jIYQCRfK1k/nIXA/MDtJgB0tKJOqhAkj6tfZDb7U w9AKfBfO9GvXZMsFkUvFe9LQUcKAyQeK6JK0pZlrM9cktCD/rBdkgKR/KnB7RNL0rIEz 0f+0GaDc3cuofuPirohFI6msbTxdZpgXZ27w+8ybyE4+lfokXa5zQHxsEuwf0ARM3Mdl B2jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bUusznyoNVhjlOQ523aB9z8ZPT7EGoONjSe9c0wv4nM9HHm8H 0H9HUwHwfU5Flc3bWz199eheOW5U9grAjn99So305Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZrvkLgFnbGq5PUz0rUD0ELG0Bku9clvYy+AQzk3sMXnm4zHvycSN1xzZE8Wm11ZzHakY3q79WSS5BIF7sIzQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7504:: with SMTP id m4mr13176939uap.34.1607366437578; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:40:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201205210351.DB78E2904420@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Seth Blank <>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:40:26 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: Dotzero <>, IETF DMARC WG <>, Michael Thomas <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000893fba05b5e42978"
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 18:40:42 -0000

On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 10:34 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:05 AM Dotzero <> 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.

This data collection is taking place at M3AAWG; Kurt Andersen is leading,
with myself and Todd Herr supporting. However, this got slowed dramatically
due to COVID-- we won't realistically see data that's useful to this
working group for another few months. In the meantime, ARC discussions
continue between many international receivers, and the DMARC WG chairs are
being kept in the loop. Once there's something material to bring back, that
will happen publicly.

> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list


*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.