+1 to Alex’s message. There are ongoing efforts to address the damage DMARC has done to legitimate indirect mail flows. ARC has been tested and no one working with large mail flows seems to think that it’s a viable solution. Focusing on ARC will prevent other solutions from being tested and tried. It’s time to give up on ARC and look at different solutions.
laura > On 9 Mar 2026, at 11:44, Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: > > Doug, > > I’m not sure why you equate lack of support for ARC with lack of interest in > solving the “mailing list” problem. I think there are many parties > interested in solving that case, and they’ve determined that ARC isn’t that > solution. Or perhaps, isn’t the solution they want due to other issues that > come with implementation (which are enumerated in Trent’s draft). I’d say > based on the interest in DKIM2, there are parties interested in resolving > that particular problem. > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > Comcast > > From: Douglas Foster <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 7:15 AM > To: Laura Atkins <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: IETF DMARC WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Proposed Recharter to Conclude the ARC Experiment > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 8 Mar 2026, at 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Delivery hints and commentary: http://www.wordtothewise.com/blog > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.wordtothewise.com/blog__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Dln8pxYfwtpEt76WgweiNBTmH9WTb6Wv426tK9l6CB3qC-WZ6H5QG_ZYfVe5RsJ0jADdlwQmwaJ7n7p_O-7N_05kTMLoNCQ$> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> -- 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]
