Mailing list questions (DMARC, ARC, more?)

[Alessandro Vesely]

Thanks Ged for all the feedback.

The lack of interest by others proves that From: munging is not so much of 
a nuisance as they say...


Best

Ale

On Tue 23/Aug/2022 16:39:33 +0200 Bind Users wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 
>> I see the list operates both From: munging and ARC sealing.  While I'm 
>> clear about the former, I'm curious about how ARC works:
>>
>> Do any subscribers trust the seal by isc.org?
> 
> When it comes to email, I don't trust *anything*. :)
> 
> Generally speaking I think these technological fixes are very much
> over-engineered as compared with, say, inspecting the headers. :/
> 
> We check the ARC seal and I would be alerted to a failure.  That's all.
> There have been two failures since ISC implemented ARC - the first two
> ARC-signed messages we received, on 25th April - all after that passed:
> 
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:00:00 +0000
> X-ARCverify: pass (All ARC Seals and the most recent ARC Signature passed 
> verification)
> 
> There were a few DKIM failures in the early days too, I don't remember
> if I investigated any of the failures.
> 
>> In that case, do they get non-munged messages?
> 
> Nope.  I'm on the digest list anyway.
> 
>> Are there other advantages that ARC brings about?
> 
> It's a comfort to know that it's all working as designed, but I can't
> get excited about munged addresses.  I've experienced no issues on the
> BIND list to which I've thought ARC might be relevant.  Unfortunately
> that's by no means the case for some of the other lists to which I am
> (or have in the past been) subscribed.
> 
>> Otherwise, RFC9057 introduced the Author: header field.  Using it to save 
>> the original From: would allow trusting receivers to de-munge the message 
>> at a later stage.  I'm trying to elaborate a draft[*] to formalize such 
>> method.  Would this list be interested in experimenting that?
> 
> I'm happy to use cut'n'paste for replies, but I can offer to help you
> with your testing.  The milters here can do more or less anything. :)
> 
> PS: Please don't be offended if mail sent directly to me is rejected.
> We can get around it.
> 
> PPS: [Page 18] s/Content-Tyep:/Content-Type:/;
>