> On 22 Oct 2015, at 16:36, Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
>
> +arc-discuss
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jim Popovitch <jim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This has a feeling of "cart before the horse". :-) Mailman, and
> presumably other list mangers, now "wrap" dmarc'ed emails before
> forwarding, where's the value-add for ARC?
>
> Jim,
>
> While there have been options for mailing lists to "wrap" email conversations
> for a long time, many list administrators and participants have fairly
> violent objections to doing so. ARC is a mechanism to inform local policy
> decisions that does not require the intermediaries to take "ownership" of the
> mail via DMARC alignment on the mail from.
>
> --Kurt Andersen
It’s good to see this stuff being addressed, Kurt. Thanks!
A couple of minor errors in the draft:
1. The two references to RFC5321 (in section 5.1.1) should I think be
references to RFC5322.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-arc-00#section-5.1.1
2. Formatting problems in the Examples, specifically in the Return-Path lines,
and all with opening square brackets in the Received headers.
Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from \[10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com \[w.x.y.z])
--
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
