IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 01 April 2024 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 4F632C14F6E4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="mjc/cIEj"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="LXxuDnJd"
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 GgoBs-dIzxbC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 DDAFBC14F6AC for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 16:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48052F80238; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1712013988; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=WHDdB8xryprXfVhfVgD2p54h1EiwnzzGIXNtkiWB4vI=; b=mjc/cIEjz0XSpqmzoLdPS81RiSHovKUPKpu4xaojrUw/f0lEt+nLUvgwlLO39ZPk0fxMo kHT8EkU+UlGlJtTCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1712013988; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=WHDdB8xryprXfVhfVgD2p54h1EiwnzzGIXNtkiWB4vI=; b=LXxuDnJdzAqD/9GY9gXOccheV9iMe/mtficnSuBrVRJbd/JgELKNgy8j8LWyryJHkMJb8 Xw2oQLmFAsb31L8X0tHVYbfqY6U6Yoes/PDcyzVi+qwkaI5XaEElNpTjDeKENsDXd9Q1fdR wFjd5KwwywJ3Ya6Xi7zZLmlIEVfEfwaq6gGGGzrAi9d61BUy0fbDmwuOCJgelxMqVr3/L8t WRf0bUlvIsaDUa7mAb5IvN1g2gun2SWpAZs8gkz5tLjQqzkwcXiLjMyHc/RllrKZwtiSToG GYfq12aRXyoaP1shhdazJGjRIumOV1wPnVrbzl76BGbjXqGmtgi052k3zIAw==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97ECEF80080; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:26:23 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20240401230502.531CA86A7CC2@ary.qy>
References: <20240401230502.531CA86A7CC2@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <F26C2BC3-6C9D-49EB-9313-9C984B8D6C1F@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uonNPVPhqG5iEZXz7VvCVbOihIQ>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] 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: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:27:01 -0000


On April 1, 2024 11:05:02 PM UTC, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>It appears that Todd Herr  <todd.herr@valimail.com> said:
>>Issue 144 has been opened for the question of what to say about ARC (RFC
>>8617) in the context of indirect mail flows, a la Murray's example text
>>from this post
>><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/v5NMVIZqvRuEfopf7gc0Q1i4Ywo/>:
>>
>>"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."

Isn't it more accurate to say that ARC is an incomplete solution.  To use ARC you also need a list of domains you trust not to lie about their ARC results (I think this is the primary blocker to more adoption).

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email