On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 12:45:34 PM EDT John R Levine wrote: > > Not quite. Lists are already screwed up, AFAICS. > > Right. Lists were fine until DMARC screwed them up. > > >> Because there are more ways for a forwarder to change a message than you > >> or > >> I can describe. > > > > That critic applies to my draft, not to unmunging in general. The only > > change we care about here is the From: field. > > As I said: > >> It's similar, but the difference is that ARC actually deals with the > >> problem and this doesn't. ARC answers the question the recipients care > >> about, "was this message aligned before it was forwarded?" Your approach > >> doesn't, and can't if the original message was aligned using SPF. > > > > ARC's added value is only meaningful for receivers whose reputation system > > is so sophisticated that that info matters. That is, for global mailbox > > providers. > > I don't think it is a good idea to assert that you know how other people's > mail systems work. We have ARC, and we know that From munging does not > address the spam leakage problem which affects everyone who receives > mailing list mail, while ARC does > > Unless someone else says they think we should engage in this mission > creep, this is all I plan to say on this topic.
I agree and think we should not. The only point I would add is that "reputation system is so sophisticated that that info matters" may be as simple as in a single user domain keeping a list of mailing list subscriptions. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
