Re: [dmarc-ietf] New Version Notification for draft-levine-dmarc-listugh-00.txt (fwd)

Joining the chorus supporting this draft as it seems like having this
document would be a prerequisite for systematically working on the
"indirect mail flows" issues mentioned in the DMARC charter.  I would
suggest at some point expanding the details of the various scenarios
perhaps as examples.
-Wei

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 7:20 PM Mark Alley <mark.alley=
40tekmarc.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
> +1 It looks good to me.
>
> Just a side note on the ARC section - from a consumer's point of view,
> several mail systems and filters today do have the option for ARC overrides
> on DMARC failure.
>
> Many come pre-configured with trusted sealer domains (most are loosely
> based on the ARC GitHub community sealers list).
>
> Others, such as Microsoft 365 and others, provide an administrator DMARC
> failure override capability via ARC, but relegate the sealer trust for the
> DMARC fail override feature entirely to the customer with no pre-configured
> (known reputable) sealer trusts.
>
> So, an M365 administrator not only has to understand what ARC is, and how
> to make it useful, but also who to trust based on their own interpretation
> of a sealer's reputation, which, as we already know, not all receivers and
> operators have exhaustive data points of which to make this determination,
> nor the processes or resources to do so.
>
> Most of these admins/operators (especially in the case of a service like
> M365) are usually consumers utilizing the service with cursory knowledge of
> the inner workings of email authentication, which only compounds the
> problem of ARC's effectiveness and adoption within similar services when
> the protocol is used this way.
>
> -Mark Alley
>
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2023, 4:25 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> At the S.F. meeting I said I'd write a draft describing the problems that
>> DMARC causes for lists and forwarders.  Take a look, let me know what I
>> got wrong.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 17:23:52
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> To: John Levine <standards@standcore.com>
>> Subject: [standcore.com-standards] New Version Notification for
>>      draft-levine-dmarc-listugh-00.txt
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-levine-dmarc-listugh-00.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by John Levine and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Name:           draft-levine-dmarc-listugh
>> Revision:       00
>> Title:          Mailing lists and mail forwarders vs. DMARC
>> Document date:  2023-08-13
>> Group:          Individual Submission
>> Pages:          7
>> URL:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-levine-dmarc-listugh-00.txt
>> Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dmarc-listugh/
>> Html:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-levine-dmarc-listugh-00.html
>> Htmlized:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-levine-dmarc-listugh
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     DMARC introduced an authentication system intended to detect and
>>     deter domain name impersonation in mail message From header fields.
>>     Unfortunately, DMARC also has caused severe damage to mail forwarders
>>     and discussion lists.  We describe the damage and some of the
>>     workarounds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>