IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Tue, 02 April 2024 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C607AC14CEFA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XIlCa35CKxG for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com (mail-pg1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44332C14F603 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-517ab9a4a13so4190126a12.1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; t=1712082178; x=1712686978; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JvUamwxtSSJS9YfLfNfsrg4C1OcbmO56qCeuea48NHU=; b=TvhB72TJDtOX7S+8kwvIDnql+L2FJMqb6XMfH6YPV/qAmvlLEoTEZWncEpEgwyKKAH FSjmMR8l6kLOx+kTjsfded7iCmKz2lZ2fp7+yIUBMQSnv0ReuKGyHZb0smhtFmtGi4cm EiXOaz/zTOPdT1wBR5779x5S+IpRj4lpLKc5GKPeHDaPokgCUow+5Ty7zUtUtSm8fZ1x D7q+xK+z97qBX3MrtHwduue6F0R/pjyPk+W8iFmA8Qtj7ujnpAErGddZYmkBH9Zu5xP2 JwPXvLgBNZ6qzzG7xfz+Xnsbl2lTr6st3UUSogRcANyuFExOHEazNAhH88pwyqALlOb/ tivg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712082178; x=1712686978; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=JvUamwxtSSJS9YfLfNfsrg4C1OcbmO56qCeuea48NHU=; b=P3FwSOuDAVmxr6wuUpPfTxI7jxUFpjIpCggcsSrHfDBpOEox8nuIFkU0Y9aMOedxq2 fwKNIsGGvUw2CNTCGd0OUgB08eiJBpoj9CNaenYLRWURKaq/+F8ig50aOdTRMxuBUi2l hQ9hlAVuGGvCzR44QJlQsswN+oXgEVsSgLG4mzO6XORccpw4NKnP+5SU/n1fl0Ykv/cW VhI22ZW9as6+boy4Dug5Y951BXyeIcVAtwDz2keiGNet14VzFnTDiyD+6pg/RrEyF444 RiplXCTzSZqOslMSOCEoPW7AbdinHNBhM7NZuwLGaJlZZFS01tttucqZCLEoyveGBdw3 K1+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyQZNJFmxNVf28YQ54ZojAQZlvPzA+S58k5OVqTWW3OeBrjcmEe JgG7qCUFvzeQQnh579F52+jLcNsNvq+qdKDw6mJd0mdhi/tE41mlSnueDYL2rURRIwe1TvQfZKz dUYv6zcasaBeRr9FvhEQXY16PosIiIq8ijUM9Rg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHWwH/3XXVRJkr5EOmsq/z5KkLePVKS1o2A3I3lKAKBWF7AldSufxYQEJ9vWM7p59eOohJKb5xvLBGSa6+AQQ8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:f545:b0:1db:7181:c5ba with SMTP id h5-20020a170902f54500b001db7181c5bamr15088763plf.62.1712082178474; Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwZKWNsV_CZ7C4ep88soaquhFG6FswoyNDWdfJ4HB7pamQ@mail.gmail.com> <20240402154918.6477686B0508@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwaaKTcQ+OyApjDn3yA0mrB+HYSurMR1pZP-angNRcPEQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOZAAfOUAVs1=UdrU-gSiJ=4CH5d7btZ8N8C-iAqqJjNm4dUGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaxUXFNWSFGszmmaJct+2iucnd4zb_=aQUTAG80DMW+iA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaxUXFNWSFGszmmaJct+2iucnd4zb_=aQUTAG80DMW+iA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 14:22:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfOBMi0JkYTYVJuZVeq4fL6gFTQ2GNvyva4oPjKAP-tcJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000131f1306152132bd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/naRRnUBD1TLlqRndjCQh0hVTOKo>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC, DMARCbis WGLC - Issue 144 Mention of ARC in DMARCbis
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:23:02 -0000

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:18 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:03 AM Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think details about the technique to which you're alluding, especially
>>> with real world examples, anecdotes, or other data, would be really
>>> valuable to publish somewhere, be that in this document or elsewhere.  Even
>>> just a paragraph that explains what ARC brings that we didn't have before,
>>> that can be used to mitigate DMARC damage, would be a step in the right
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> The ARC usage document appears to have been parked and expired, so that
>>> advice doesn't seem to exist anywhere now.  Is the plan to revive that, now
>>> that we appear to have at least one source of experience?
>>>
>>
>> At M3AAWG a month ago, a couple of major mailboxes agreed to share their
>> experience (and success) with ARC to this list. It is apparently making a
>> significant difference for their systems. Getting that data public is still
>> slow moving.
>>
>
> That would be really interesting to see.  Since you have seen it, what's
> your view on whether such material is a viable input to this WGLC?  Should
> we wait for it?
>

I don't think it's terribly material to WGLC for dmarc-bis, I do think it's
relevant for progressing the ARC experiment after WGLC.

Seth, hatless



> -MSK, p11g
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>


-- 

Seth Blank | Chief Technology Officer
Email: seth@valimail.com


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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email