Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 12/5/20 12:56 PM, John Levine wrote: 2) Last week someone was complaining about the expense of the signatures in ARC seals, now multiple signatures don't hurt anything. While I agree with the latter sentiment, what changed? It means that you can't control somebody else's infrastructure. We

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

In article you write: >> I dunno how special that case is, but there are lots of cases where mail >> passes >> through multiple layers of ARC signing mutations. >> >> I routinely get mail from Microsoft's farm with an ARC seal or two >> that has never been near a mailing list. Any time a MS user

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 12/5/20 10:29 AM, John Levine wrote: In article you write: mailing list to mailing list mail is very common in GSuite, but maybe we're a special case. I dunno how special that case is, but there are lots of cases where mail passes through multiple layers of ARC signing mutations. I rout

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

In article you write: >mailing list to mailing list mail is very common in GSuite, but maybe we're >a special case. I dunno how special that case is, but there are lots of cases where mail passes through multiple layers of ARC signing mutations. I routinely get mail from Microsoft's farm with

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On Fri 04/Dec/2020 23:45:47 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:11 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Wed 02/Dec/2020 03:14:46 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:37 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Tue 01/Dec/2020 05:56:46 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On Tue 01/Dec/2020 14:27:04 +0100 devel2020 wrote: Le 01/12/2020 à 11:37, Alessandro Vesely a écrit : [...] a meagre set of old-fashioned individuals who still dislike mass social media [...] Can decisions please be made based on sound technical reasons rather than intolerance and zealotry?

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 12/1/20 6:21 PM, Brandon Long wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:07 AM Michael Thomas > wrote: On 11/30/20 8:56 PM, Brandon Long wrote: Right, some of the other dkim-light or diff concepts we discussed would be better than using l= We again got hung

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

Le 01/12/2020 à 11:37, Alessandro Vesely a écrit : > > [...] a meagre set of old-fashioned individuals who still dislike mass social > media [...] Can decisions please be made based on sound technical reasons rather than intolerance and zealotry? Setting aside the form of your argument: no, con

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On Wed 02/Dec/2020 03:14:46 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 2:37 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Tue 01/Dec/2020 05:56:46 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 12:59 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: On 25/11/2020 20:16, Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/25/20 11:11 AM, Ales

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:07 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 11/30/20 8:56 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > > Right, some of the other dkim-light or diff concepts we discussed would be > better than using l= > > We again got hung up on the 100% solution, though... something that > handled subject-prefix

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 11/30/20 8:56 PM, Brandon Long wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 12:59 AM Alessandro Vesely > wrote: On 25/11/2020 20:16, Michael Thomas wrote: > When I was at Cisco, with l= and some subject line heuristics I could get > probably like 90+% verificatio

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On Tue 01/Dec/2020 05:56:46 +0100 Brandon Long wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 12:59 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> On 25/11/2020 20:16, Michael Thomas wrote: >>> On 11/25/20 11:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On 25/11/2020 19:24, Jesse Thompson wrote: > On 11/25/20 11:30 AM, Alessand

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 25/11/2020 20:16, Michael Thomas wrote: On 11/25/20 11:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On 25/11/2020 19:24, Jesse Thompson wrote: On 11/25/20 11:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: Without resorting to ARC, it is still possible to validate author domain's signatures directly if the MLM just add

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

In article <695b8714-b174-e3d6-d6c0-1a1d535fb...@mtcc.com> you write: >Not everything is service provider. We were investigating this from an >enterprise standpoint. > >And if you can't trust mailing traffic from providers what is the point >of ARC? Um, please see the previous umpteen messages d

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 11/25/20 12:31 PM, John Levine wrote: In article , Michael Thomas wrote: When I was at Cisco, with l= and some subject line heuristics I could get probably like 90+% verification rate across the entire company, a company that uses external mailing lists a lot. Definitely not 100% though.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

In article , Michael Thomas wrote: >When I was at Cisco, with l= and some subject line heuristics I could >get probably like 90+% verification rate across the entire company, a >company that uses external mailing lists a lot. Definitely not 100% though. I think you will find that at very large

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 11/25/20 11:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: Hi, On 25/11/2020 19:24, Jesse Thompson wrote: On 11/25/20 11:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: Without resorting to ARC, it is still possible to validate author domain's signatures directly if the MLM just adds a subject tag and a footer, like, f

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

Hi, On 25/11/2020 19:24, Jesse Thompson wrote: On 11/25/20 11:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: Without resorting to ARC, it is still possible to validate author domain's signatures directly if the MLM just adds a subject tag and a footer, like, for example, this list does.   While ARC solves "

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On 11/25/20 11:30 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Without resorting to ARC, it is still possible to validate author domain's > signatures directly if the MLM just adds a subject tag and a footer, like, > for example, this list does.   While ARC solves "deep" forwarding problems, > which may arise

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

Hi, On 25/11/2020 13:57, Douglas E. Foster wrote: Indirect mail flows are difficult to detect.   SMTP address rewrite is already common practice for forwarding. Return address rewriting is a Good Thing™, unlike From: rewriting. I'd welcome forwarding my email, even if modified (I'm not a ba

Re: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

ssage From: Alessandro Vesely Date: 11/25/20 6:28 AM (GMT-05:00) To: dmarc-ietf Subject: [dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions On Mon 23/Nov/2020 22:27:41 +0100 John Levine wrote: > ARC deals with the problem that most list software forwards everything

[dmarc-ietf] A policy for direct mail flows only, was ARC questions

On Mon 23/Nov/2020 22:27:41 +0100 John Levine wrote: ARC deals with the problem that most list software forwards everything with a subscriber's address on the From: line and does a lousy job of spam filtering. The question is if the entity sending the message to the list was who it purported to b