I would certainly like to believe that evaluators need no advice because they know what they are doing, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
The "mailbox problem" indicates that evaluators are not acting in the interest of their users, by blocking acceptable messages that users want. It also indicates, indirectly, that evaluators are failing their users because they are configured to accept some malicious impersonation that they should be blocking. Doug Foster On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 6:45 AM Laura Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8 Mar 2026, at 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we're going in circles here. You're saying there might be value > in ARC worth pursuing, and we won't know unless we try. But for "try" to > happen, there need to be people interested in putting in the work to get to > the answer. I'm not the one that gets to make that call, but I think > there's a dearth of interest in doing so. > > Putting it in the charter doesn't guarantee people will show up to do the > work. In fact, part of chartering a WG is asking "Who will do this work if > we charter it?" and, well, I personally think the answer is plain. > > > Following on to this. Big mailbox providers have done the work to > implement ARC signing on their mail. We’ve heard from a few major mailbox > providers they have looked at using the data on the inbound. They aren’t > interested in working on more experiments in ARC. > > I don’t think there’s anything here and we should just end the ARC > experiment. > > laura > > -- > The Delivery Expert > > Laura Atkins > Word to the Wise > [email protected] > > Delivery hints and commentary: http://www.wordtothewise.com/blog > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
