ARC (was - Re: DMARC and

Dave Crocker <> Sat, 13 August 2016 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AF612D5E8 for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SBpzVd2xZlPA for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A20BA12D1E4 for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u7DFNTe8007873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:23:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1471101809; bh=181qEPGlbHS93yWnPACYpZ6HXGMhPCJt6Q6xq8Uz9Ek=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=BzWjGnc4cA4bxLIiRgYb9nkHu33Q6zzbp34KqDndSijGHTMacYt/+1xCBjzBUvvzz xNnoIHQDqXcznmRQD8TrWO9sIwfP4FX9bmFoP/DZA9QmCS3rGD54inhekMhCG/go+E aKUtP9I4Upief+y2RDJPdRdje88Xwktpt3l5xqf4=
Subject: ARC (was - Re: DMARC and
To: John R Levine <>, "Theodore Ts'o" <>
References: <> <20160813023957.5679.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1608131101040.12562@ary.local>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:22:52 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1608131101040.12562@ary.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 15:23:25 -0000

On 8/13/2016 8:10 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> More to the point, ARC lets lists keep working they way they're supposed
> to.

I participate in the informal group that created ARC.  I am hoping ARC 
will be helpful.

But we need to be cautious with our expectations.  First, it isn't 
operational yet, so we don't even know whether it will do what we want 
it to.  Worse, we don't know how much that will help.

That's not a claim that it won't work or won't be useful, but it is 
playing amidst some Internet-scale, multi-stage dynamics that can get 

By way of example:  With DKIM, trust assessment is of the entity doing 
the signing, typically the originating service.  With ARC, that 
assessment still must be made, but it must be coupled with an assessment 
of the first ARC-signing entity.

Maybe that's not a big deal.  But I think that combinatorial trust 
assessments are new and therefore might be challenging.

And that's not counting the question of whether an ARC signature will 
survive better than a DKIM signature...  (The design is intended to have 
better survival, but again, it hasn't been tested in the field.)

In terms of the current discussion, the essential point is that we need 
to make decision based on the here and now, and ARC isn't part of it and 
won't be for some time yet.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking