[dmarc-discuss] A bit quiet?
Rolf E. Sonneveld
R.E.Sonneveld at sonnection.nl
Thu Oct 22 13:49:56 PDT 2015
On 22-10-15 22:16, Terry Zink via dmarc-discuss wrote:
>> Sad to see that Gmail plan to move to p=reject
> Why do you say this? Because it will disrupt mailing lists (as in, yahoo.com refugees moved to gmail.com and now that will no longer available)?
> If ARC solves the problem of mailing lists, then it means anyone with a domain with p=reject can join a mailing list (which is great, no hacky workarounds needed) and helps drive email authentication forward.
True. And I have to say that the ARC proposal looks quite promising. But
there's no running code around yet (maybe there is within the big ESPs?)
and do we know how ARC will behave in the real world on an Internet
scale (big ESPs + the other half of the Internet)? For example, what
about resource consumption in case of long chains of intermediaries,
what about header size in relation to some MTAs and AS systems imposing
header length limits etc.? Meanwhile, the announcement that Gmail will
move to p=reject has already been made, so I hope ARC is the way to go
to solve the problems mentioned in the Interoperability draft and it
will be in time to implement it for the mailing lists I run.
Is there a list where ARC is being discussed? Are there any (test)
reports on the use of ARC available?
More information about the dmarc-discuss