Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC-Seal is meaningless security theatre

On 8/17/2017 4:09 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, at 15:28, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Bron Gondwana > wrote: While there exists A SINGLE SITE which is ARC-unaware and DMARC p=reject

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Does the concept of an ARC tempfail make any sense?

I'm normally not a fan of reputation but this may be a case where reputation might be useful. I'd have to think on this some more. Mike On 5/24/2017 6:56 PM, Brandon Long wrote: So, last year I did add the concept of a dmarc tempfail to our code, but the main utility of that was to respond

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC-Authentication-Results

On 4/5/2017 1:02 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Brandon Long > wrote: Knowing what the previous ADMD thought is explicitly a goal of ARC. The theory is, the first hop said that it was from yahoo.com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] updating draft-akagiri-dmarc-virtual-verification

On 3/25/2017 12:45 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: For SPF, we had "best guess" [1], which we chose not to standardize at all because we didn't think it appropriate to break the opt-in nature of SPF. This concerns me a bit here, but I'm mostly writing to support the idea of distinguishing between