Let's recap what we know about the ARC experiment:
We have two major players who have tried the ARC.
For Outlook.com, Microsoft is using ARC to document their role as
originator or outbound gateway.ARC does not provide the appropriate
authentication mechanisms for this, so Microsoft makes up
Let's not conflate "spaminess" with authentication (specifically DMARC and
ARC) and forwarding. DMARC deals with direct domain abuse. ARC is an
attempt to show an authenticated chain of handling outside of DMARC when
DKIM and/or SPF is broken through forwarding. Consideration of "spaminess"
is
On March 19, 2023 7:30:55 AM UTC, Wei Chuang wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:05 AM Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On March 15, 2023 6:55:15 AM UTC, Wei Chuang > 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> >On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> For the replay
Let's not gloss over the interaction between spaminess, forwarding, and
authentication.
A forwarded mail stream will almost always be viewed as spammy, if any spam
exists in the source mail stream. This is because:
- The downstream evaluator will give the forwarder no credit for spam
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:05 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
>
>
> On March 15, 2023 6:55:15 AM UTC, Wei Chuang 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
> >wrote:
> >
> >> For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make
> >> sense
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:02 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Wed 15/Mar/2023 07:55:15 +0100 Wei Chuang wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
> >
> >> For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make
> >> sense to wait and see how the DKIM
Apologies for repeating myself here and creating noise. I'm just
re-walking through the thread, trying to get to Scott's subsequent
response, which I wanted to get to.
-Wei
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:19 AM Wei Chuang wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>
>>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make
> sense to wait and see how the DKIM working group addresses the problem for
> DKIM generally and then assess how their solution impacts ARC and how it
> addresses the
On March 15, 2023 6:55:15 AM UTC, Wei Chuang
wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>> For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make
>> sense to wait and see how the DKIM working group addresses the problem for
>> DKIM generally and then
On Wed 15/Mar/2023 07:55:15 +0100 Wei Chuang wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make
sense to wait and see how the DKIM working group addresses the problem for
DKIM generally and then assess how their
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:11 AM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make
> sense to wait and see how the DKIM working group addresses the problem for
> DKIM generally and then assess how their solution impacts ARC and how it
> addresses the
For the replay resistance part of the question, I think it would make sense to
wait and see how the DKIM working group addresses the problem for DKIM
generally and then assess how their solution impacts ARC and how it addresses
the issue for ARC.
I think the question of spamminess is
Hi all,
We've been making use of ARC to help with forwarded mail. One thing we've
noticed is differences for when some forwarders generate the ARC headers.
Another concern is that we've seen spammers attempt to manipulate ARC
headers.
1) ARC could benefit from more refinement of interop such as
13 matches
Mail list logo
