In article <1ef0572d-a83c-ad97-9c0d-5f5615ab1...@wisc.edu> you write: >On 6/15/20 2:33 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> Let me quote a list of nineteen usable solutions: >> 1.2 Turn off all message modifications >> 1.3 Replace address with a generic one >> 1.5 Rewrite addresses to forwarding addresses
>> That page hasn't been updated since 2016. I don't think we can devise any >> new solution now. There's >been a natural selection. Solution 1.3 prevailed, with a minority of lists >opting for 1.2. Let's face >facts. Here in the IETF we use 1.5 but, yes. >Microsoft's solution: 1.2 (conditionally, based on some logic, it seems) >Google's solution: 1.3 (conditionally, based on DMARC p=quarantine or p=reject) They both claim they're working on ARC. >So, solution 1.3 has been naturally selected. Does it need to be >standardized, or is a BCP good enough? >I'd still like to see a solution for receivers to "un-munge" trustworthy >messages in a safe and >consistent way. Is that where ARC comes in? No. ARC lets mail systems accept list mail without munging. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
