Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC

Just to add some specifics, since August of 2023 we've gone from seeing
~100 ARC sealers of meaningful volume to over 300 as of yesterday. It is
extremely important in our experience to have standard ways of identifying
indirect flows. ListId headers and ReceivedHeaders are the bare minimum for
MailingLists today, but those are both easily spoofable and ARC provides a
much safer approach to standardizing that indirect flow identification
problem.

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 1:02 AM Emanuel Schorsch <emschorsch@google.com>
wrote:

> Just to chime in, Gmail is using ARC and it has already provided a large
> amount of value for the indirect flow problem. Especially, since other
> major providers and a number of forwarders are adding ARC headers that
> provide us useful visibility into the previous hops and allow us to make
> more intelligent decisions. I can share that a number of escalations for
> problems that arose out of indirect flows have been resolved by use of ARC
> headers.
>
> I would love to see more mailingLists add ARC headers. But as stands today
> it is already providing a reasonably large amount of value.
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:48 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:05 PM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >"One possible mitigation to problem X is [ARC], which provides for a
>>> >mechanism to demonstrate 'chain-of-custody' of a message. However, use
>>> of
>>> >ARC is nascent, as is industry experience with it in connection with
>>> DMARC."
>>>
>>> Generally OK but nascent seems wrong for something that was published
>>> five
>>> years ago.  How about "ARC has found limited acceptance in the industy so
>>> it is unclear how much help it will provide in practice."
>>>
>>
>> Sure.  I used "nascent" because I don't feel like we have seen even basic
>> statements about how useful it's been in solving the indirect flows
>> problem, at scale or otherwise, so it's nascent in the same sense that it
>> is not well-established.
>>
>> -MSK, p11g
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> dmarc@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>
>

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis