Let's come back to the charter, please. To those who chimed in on this thread, it seems to me that most of you are OK with the charter as Trent proposed it, due to the resistance to Ale's proposed language. Can you please be explicit on if you think Trent's proposed charter is adequate for the sake of determining consensus?
We can talk merits of ARC and how to conclude the experiment AFTER a charter is locked in and approved by the IESG. Seth, as Chair On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 10:15 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, ARC has been tested, but without any authorization component. This > allows > us to identify the forwarder and learn its filtering approach, but without > knowing whether the forwarding is authorized, this information is useless. > > Different solutions, such as DKIM2, are supposedly better than ARC, but, > again, > they don't provide any authorization system. Therefore, they probably > won't > solve the mailing list problem either. And they won't be coming anytime > soon. > > I'm asking the WG to consider a simple authorization scheme which could > address > the forwarding issue. This draft was not considered at the time because > Phase > II, "Specification of DMARC Improvements to Support Indirect Mail Flows", > was > considered complete with the publication of ARC. > > In this context, once authorization is granted, ARC appears to be slightly > preferable to DKIM for authentication, thanks to the addition of the AAR > field. > This is not /focusing/ on ARC, but simply using it for what it's worth. > > > Best > Ale > > On Mon 09/Mar/2026 12:49:58 +0100 Laura Atkins wrote: > > +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]> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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] >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
