On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Seth Blank <s...@sethblank.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Kurt Andersen <ku...@drkurt.com> wrote: > >> During today's lunch conversation, the question of how we can reasonably >> scale recipients being able to identify mediators came up. >> > > I don't understand. Mediators ARC sign, the header is everything you need > for this identification, is it not? > Let's take ietf.org as an example. There are @ietf.org individuals and then there are all the mailing lists. If IETF wished to assert to receivers that all their mail was either mediated or came from designated internal servers, how would they do that? > We've suggested (during M3AAWG sessions) that smaller recipients can build >> out a whitelist of "commonly seen" mediators, but might there be value in >> having a mediator publish some sort of DNS record that would indicate that >> they ARC seal mediated traffic? (We're deeming this not to be a problem for >> "big" receivers on the basis that they probably already know most of the >> major mediators within their traffic streams.) >> > > This is not why the white list exists. The white list exists as a > short-term hack for people without internal reputation systems to determine > trusted intermediaries (like the IETF, apache.org, etc.). Me publishing > that I'm trusted on my own DNS doesn't help ;-) > I realize that you can not vouch for yourself, but you can say that you participate in ARC for mediated mail. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
