Re: [dmarc-ietf] Any outstanding issues on 7601bis?

2018-07-12 Thread tjw ietf
7601bis looks good for WGLC Tim >From my high tech gadget > On Jul 11, 2018, at 23:22, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > >> On July 12, 2018 12:20:39 AM UTC, John Levine wrote: >> In article <2940516.WEBi8fTYBz@kitterma-e6430> you write: >>> Is the list of EAI affected components of the field co

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC protocol-15 posted

2018-07-12 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >Given that we've settled on Experimental status, I propose this gets tabled >until that's published. The experiment will establish what benefit ARC can >provide, which I think is the most important output of this work. The >change being suggested here appears to be one of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Seth Blank wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) > wrote: >> >> Interesting thoughts. Starting an ARC series at the initial ADMD could >> give such a signal but I can think of easier ways to do so - perhaps a "I >> support ARC" bumper sticke

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Dave Crocker
On 7/12/2018 12:58 AM, Martijn van der Lee wrote: Is a message sender allowed (or perhaps even advised) to be part of the ARC chain as the first set of the chain? Just for clarity, do you mean the author or the originator? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Seth Blank
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 07:38 Martijn van der Lee > wrote: > >> ... would it be beneficial or harmful (or neutral) for the sender to do >> so anyway? >> > Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 explicitly call out that it's safe to Seal. As Kurt mentio

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 07:38 Martijn van der Lee wrote: > ... would it be beneficial or harmful (or neutral) for the sender to do so > anyway? > > I can imagine validators taking note of ARC capability of an ADMD for > reputation tracking. If an email is send by a sender known to start the ARC > c

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Martijn van der Lee
Perhaps "advised" was a wrong choice of words. I understand that ARC makes no additional demands on the sender. But would it be beneficial or harmful (or neutral) for the sender to do so anyway? I can imagine validators taking note of ARC capability of an ADMD for reputation tracking. If an email

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Martijn van der Lee < martijn=40dmarcanalyzer@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > This is more in regards to the Recommended Usage draft than the ARC spec > itself (and possibly this has been answered elsewhere before). > > Is a message sender allowed (or perhaps even ad

[dmarc-ietf] Message sender as part of ARC chain?

2018-07-12 Thread Martijn van der Lee
This is more in regards to the Recommended Usage draft than the ARC spec itself (and possibly this has been answered elsewhere before). Is a message sender allowed (or perhaps even advised) to be part of the ARC chain as the first set of the chain? -- Martijn van der Lee _