Why should the sender be involved in determining which forwarding is
allowed?
The arc chain specifies each of the hops, and the receiving domain is in
the best position to know about the intermediaries.
I can imagine a whitelist style rbl allowing folks to know which
intermediaries to trust, but I don't get having to have each sender know
all intermediaries ahead of time.
Brandon
On May 23, 2017 8:27 AM, "Hector Santos" <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote:
> On 5/11/2017 7:08 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
>
>>
>> We're still a couple weeks away from using this information in dmarc
>> evaluation.
>>
>
> If my understanding is correct of the ARC work done, and thanks to Murray
> for his draft rewrite ("better" flow, mail tech read), ARC will allow an
> "indirect" message, i.e. list message, to survive the original author
> domain signature, provided the final receiver reads the ARC headers with a
> 3rd party ARC seal?
>
> If so, are we still missing a *deterministic* author domain 3rd party
> signature authorization procedure/protocol that links DMARC with ARC?
>
> When I last left this work, I called that a "Registration" scheme,
> process, I thought was inherently missing in all the DKIM "policy" proposed
> solutions.
>
> Before I begin to look at implementing ARC for our mail server, I am
> still hopeful for a "registration" DKIM/POLICY protocol. This is could be
> as simple as an extended DMARC "arc" tag, hopefully as an optional signal
> to augment something like ATPS (Authorized Third Party Signature). Maybe a
> ATPAS (Authorized Third Party Arc Seal)?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> HLS
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
