Previous ways of adapting to DMARC involved changing mailing list semantics; ARC doesn't. That's a theoretical reason to believe it may get adoption where other things didn't. The practical one is that there are mailing list systems working on code, and mailing list operators I've spoken too are more positive about ARC than they are about changing From:.
Elizabeth On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:12 AM, A. Schulze via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: Hello, Kurt just mention adoption in his last message. Adoption is a good point, I've two questions: 1) are there implementation available as open source? I'm aware Google has some code. I guess there are other implementers otherwise the inter-op events wouldn't make sense. The protocol is that kind of special I don't expect so many implementers with the necessary skills. 2) a general point I'm still unsure about: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage say in 2.) "If the mailing list implemented ARC, ..." ARC *require* the list operator (Intermediary) to install new or update existing - right? But the list operators fail over the last years to do so. Why should I expect they will do now? p=reject on google/gmail/googlemail may generate the required pressure but that doesn't sound like the best way to achieve adoption. Andreas _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
_______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
