The Microsoft ARC headers that I've seen have all validated; I wonder if something new is broken.
Can you share what you're seeing? On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 1:39 PM John Levine via dmarc-discuss < dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > In article <0746ea03-c242-1020-7df8-f087f58a0...@crash.com> you write: > >But yes, it's also worth noting that the item posted to the "Microsoft > >365 Roadmap" at the end of October only discussed the use of ARC when > >receiving messages for mailboxes hosted by Microsoft. It didn't address > >any use of ARC in messages received from Microsoft by other entities. > > Understood, but I'd think that things would work better overall if > their ARC headers implemented RFC 8617 rather than some Redmond mutant. > > It looks to me like they're signing a private header that's modified on > the way our or something like that. > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- *Seth Blank* | Director, Industry Initiatives *e:* s...@valimail.com *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ 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)
