Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

Michael Thomas <> Wed, 25 November 2020 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A254C3A1610 for <>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxH-ovW8qBHn for <>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54CE73A160F for <>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w187so3253695pfd.5 for <>; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=GM5NcBr60rHlp90ShYKruHQaSY9828NSzHze1Q6RgkU=; b=q7l9OWO0ERU5rdFEWf0cWLea5XHgGcDyejM+nvTJ230194go2NeBWVMm1BmeVsX6xH 5ouk7RUrgeyQJeBnWYz/r/Y7eigmzCbGQ42cgT8+R++tar7BZJxqxwWQlTPSxf5vZzVD hrs1EWlHwdJB3anpgAUIjP/Y5EKfTeH82dZks+pFUcVGEDJ4hmhfl/tYBngA2W0BpoyP dHRmjIA6v1FtAGK5QbWzc0l78lhlQbWxq92d71yQjETckYjtHjCUlMudW5/AAqmyp31V /znwVSfb5aYBMagZpyzKjDasXH7kmqqQGc2Jby+5hrFaDt/3mvmDlULn2j+SD8D2C6ip 6Bsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=GM5NcBr60rHlp90ShYKruHQaSY9828NSzHze1Q6RgkU=; b=J2eCjHQucFhTAlVJXhYkAMKRVRu68toNnjKxg0SoUx4aNIDGuB6kcFQM/8r+B+7EqV 3/cbT5C6kVW+XtJH61sObVwovN63NYm8+T8z23vHiKbG2FFYqfxEGJxtFcZHkGmNhXsT fUNdAQp6gExPP36mshv+WT8N/1suklWdwUFN/TjJrgalXyB59dmOByVFmh4c7m4p38Fk nGP+kucdl5WdXwJBKT2pN49a6BXpAcS18hGfxzarqaUVyM3CHAjPafaC6simZDzgDepG Q+CkEAJHPQK1qTp9sh9OAYeR5xF+9i2HJrvNe1lISYoe82h7+vWt+I1wJKTjDK2Ika4O 0I1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533b1l5oD6jOCs8CEiwsYViaoFqqsMDNZ3TyA71qKrk9f5r0NONg ENSmxat3ppiF8ybRlxuSpS0Z1xXX9xmQWA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweBzGwRj2o62ZMw0qtw3f9LQpqXbPKOuUj56lK5i7Y26CvqruMD7Oge65WqjIpkdQVFXkVsQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4906:: with SMTP id kr6mr6052778pjb.85.1606331796348; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id c2sm2691299pfi.21.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:35 -0800 (PST)
References: <e9166148b9564102a652b4764b4f61ff@com> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 11:16:34 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions
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: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 19:16:39 -0000

On 11/25/20 11:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Hi,
> On 25/11/2020 19:24, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>> On 11/25/20 11:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> Without resorting to ARC, it is still possible to validate author 
>>> domain's signatures directly if the MLM just adds a subject tag and 
>>> a footer, like, for example, this list does.   While ARC solves 
>>> "deep" forwarding problems, which may arise in the context of email 
>>> address portability, MLM transformation reversion solves the simpler 
>>> mailing list problem, including reverting munged From:'s.
>> I agree that ARC isn't really needed to do this (trust the last hop 
>> from the MLM and determine the original authenticity from the MLM's 
>> perspective)
> I didn't mean to trust the MLM.  I meant remove the subject tag and 
> the footer, then the original DKIM signature verifies.  See:

When I was at Cisco, with l= and some subject line heuristics I could 
get probably like 90+% verification rate across the entire company, a 
company that uses external mailing lists a lot. Definitely not 100% though.