DMARC Working Group K. Andersen
Internet-Draft LinkedIn
Intended status: Standards Track B. Long, Ed.
Expires: January 22, 2018 Google
S. Jones, Ed.
M. Kucherawy, Ed.
TDP
July 21, 2017

Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol
draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-08

Abstract

The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol creates a mechanism whereby a series of handlers of a message can conduct authentication of a message as it passes among them on the way to its destination, and record the status of that authentication at each step along the handling path, for use by the final recipient in making choices about the disposition of the message.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 22, 2018.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Modern email authentication techniques such as the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) [RFC7208] and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) [RFC6376] have become ubiquitious. However, they are stymied by a small number of common applications, most notably mailing list managers, as these applications have handling properties that prevent these authentication schemes from universal effectiveness. These issues are described in substantial detail in those protocols’ defining documents as well as in [RFC6377] and [RFC7960].

In an effort to reduce the success of fraudulent email campaigns, there has been an effort to develop and deploy technologies that use SPF and DKIM to assure legitimate use of the identity of the apparent message author, i.e., the visible “From:” field in a message. To this end, Domain-based Mail Authentication, Reporting and Compliance (DMARC) [RFC7489] has been developed and deployed. However, its deployment in environments where mailing lists are used has had the negative impacts predicted in the documents listed above.

What is needed is a mechanism by which legitimate alteration of a message, invalidating SPF and DKIM, does not ultimately result in a rejection of an email message on delivery. An Authenticated Received Chain (ARC), described here, provides a superset of the functionality of DKIM in order to provide to the message recipient system(s) a more complete view into the handling chain of a message and the points in that chain where alterations of the content may have occurred. Equipped with this more complete information, the recipient system(s) can make a more informed handling choice, reducing or eliminating the false postives inherent in use of DKIM and/or SPF themselves.

2. Overview

In DKIM, every participating signing agent attaches a signature that is based on the content of the message, local policy, and the domain name of the participating Administrative Management Domain (ADMD). Any verifier can process such a signature; a verified signature means the message content that was “covered” by the signature has not been altered since the signature was applied. The signatures themselves are generally independent of one another.

By contrast, this protocol seeks to have each signature be able to convey the following pieces of information:

  1. An assertion that, at the time that the intermediary ADMD processed the message, the various assertions already attached to the message by other ADMDs were or were not valid;
  2. As with DKIM, an assertion that, for a passing signature, the domain name in the signature takes some responsibility for handling of the message and that the message is unchanged since that signature was applied;
  3. A further assertion that combines and protects the above against alteration by later handlers.

This protocol accomplishes each of these by adding a new header field to the message for each of them, as follows:

A distinguishing feature of all of these is that an ARC participant always adds all of them before relaying a message to the next handling agent en route to its destination. Moreover, as described in Section 4, they each have an “instance” number that increases with each ADMD in the handling chain so that their original order can be preserved and the three of them can be processed as a group.

3. Terminology

This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Readers are encouraged to be familiar with the contents of [RFC5598], and in particular, the potential roles of intermediaries in the delivery of email.

Syntax descriptions use Augmented BNF (ABNF) [RFC5234].

A single group of the header fields introduced in Section 2 is called an “ARC set”, and the complete sequence of these groups is called an “Authenticated Received Chain” or merely an “ARC chain”. Although the “Received” header field is typically not included in the signed content, the name is based on the notion that this is in essence a cryptographically signed series of header fields that attest to the handling chain of a message much as Received fields always have.

4. Instance (‘i=’) Tags

The header fields comprising a single ARC set are identified by the presence of a string in the value portion of the header field that complies with the “tag-spec” ABNF found in Section 3.2 of [RFC6376]. The tag-name is always the single character “i” and the value is the text representation of a positive integer, indicating the position in the ARC sequence this set occupies, where the first ARC set is numbered 1. In ABNF terms:

   instance = [FWS] %x69 [FWS] "=" [FWS] 1*DIGIT [FWS] ";"

At any delivery stage, it is an error if any ARC set is invalid (i.e., does not contain exactly one of the three header fields defined by this protocol). (Note that when multiple algorithms are supported, there is some nuance to this statement - see Section 10.)

Note that because the AMS and AS header field values are made up of tag-spec constructs, the i= tag may be found anywhere within the header field value, but is represented throughout this spec in the initial position for convenience. Implementers SHOULD seek to start with the i= tag to facilitate human inspection of the headers.

4.1. Valid Range for Instance Tags

The ‘i’ tag value can range from 1-1024 (inclusive).

ARC implementations MUST support at least ten (10) intermediary steps.

More than fifty (50) intermediaries is considered extremely unlikely so ARC chains with more than fifty intermediaries may be marked with “cv=fail”.

5. The ARC Header Fields

The three header fields that are part of this specification borrow heavily from existing specifications. Rather than repeating all of the formal definitions that are being reused in ARC, this document only describes and specifies changes in syntax and semantics.

5.1. ARC-Authentication-Results (AAR)

The ARC-Authentication-Results header field is defined. It is syntactically and semantically identical to an Authentication-Results header field [RFC7601] (A-R), as is the mechanism by which it is constructed, with the following exception:

The instance identifier MUST be separated from the rest of the Authentication-Results value contents with a semi-colon (‘;’, 0x3b).

The purpose of this header field is to incorporate into the record the success or failure of any authentication done on the message upstream of the participating ADMD, to validate and continue the authentication chain.

In processing, some architectures will generate multiple A-R records for the same authserv-id. In such cases, the resinfo value from each of the A-R records should be concatenated into a single record just as they would have been if they were generated in a single A-R record.

5.1.1. Additional Information for the AAR Header

An ARC signer generates this field in the same way that a conventional A-R field would be generated. Because the AAR is designed for machine-based consumption over the course of a message’s transit through a series of mediators and to facilitate troubleshooting of problematic sources by sending organizations, three additional fields of data SHOULD be added to the normal A-R content, dependent on the presence of DKIM-Signature and/or ARC set(s) and if available to the ADMD which is recording the A-R:

5.2. ARC-Message-Signature (AMS)

The ARC-Message-Signature header field is defined. It is syntactically and semantically identical to a DKIM-Signature header field [RFC6376], as is the mechanism by which it is constructed, with the following exceptions:

ARC-Seal header fields MUST never be included in the content covered by the signature in this header field.

The AMS SHOULD include any DKIM-Signature header fields already present on the message in the header fields covered by this signature.

The AMS header field MAY inclue (sign) the AAR header field(s).

Authentication-Results header fields SHOULD NOT be included since they are likely to be deleted by downstream ADMDs (per Section XXX of [RFC7601]), thereby breaking the AMS signature.

As with a DKIM-Signature, the purpose of this header field is to allow the ADMD generating it to take some responsibility for handling this message as it progresses toward delivery.

5.3. ARC-Seal (AS)

The ARC-Seal header field is defined. It is syntactically and semantically similar to a DKIM-Signature field, with the following exceptions:

The purpose of this field is to assure the integrity of the ARC set being added by the ADMD generating this header field, and moreover to ensure no tampering with the ARC overall.

5.3.1. The ‘cv’ Tag

A new tag “cv” (chain validation) is defined, which indicates the state of the ARC chain as evaluated when it arrived at the ADMD adding this header field. It accepts one of three possible values:

In ABNF terms:

 seal-cv-tag = %x63.76 [FWS] "=" [FWS] ("none" / "fail" / "pass")

5.3.2. Selected Header Fields

The ARC-Seal signature is an encryption of the hash of the concatenation of the canonicalized form of the ARC sets present on the message at the time of sealing, in increasing instance order, starting at 1, including the one being added at the time of sealing the message.

Within a set, the header fields are presented in the following order:

  1. ARC-Authentication-Results
  2. ARC-Message-Signature
  3. ARC-Seal

Where the ARC-Seal is the one being generated, it is presented to the hash function in its final form except with an empty “b=” value, in the same manner by which a DKIM-Signature signs itself.

Note that the signing scope for the ARC-Seal is modified in the situation where a chain has failed validation (see Section 9.3).

6. Verifier Actions

The verifier takes the following steps to determine the current state of the ARC on the message:

  1. Collect all ARC sets currently on the message. If there were none, the ARC state is “none” and the algorithm stops here.
  2. If any ARC set is invalid (e.g., does not contain exactly one of each of the three ARC-specific header fields), then the chain state is “fail” and the algorithm stops here.
    1. To bypass all cryto and DNS operations, the cv value for all ARC-Seal(s) MAY be checked at this point. If any of the values are “fail”, then the overall state of the chain is “fail” and the algorithm stops here.
  3. Conduct verification of the ARC-Message-Signature header field bearing the highest instance number. If this verification fails, then the chain state is “fail” and the algorithm stops here.
  4. For each ARC-Seal from the “N”th instance to the first, apply the following logic:
    1. If the value of the “cv” tag on that seal is “fail”, the chain state is “fail” and the algorithm stops here. (note that this duplicates step 2.1)
    2. In Boolean nomenclature: if ((i == 1 && cv != “none”) or (cv == “none” && i != 1)) then the chain state is “fail” and the algorithm stops here.
    3. Prepare a hash function corresponding to the “a” tag of the ARC-Seal.
    4. Compute the canonicalized form of the ARC header fields, in the order described in Section 5.3.2, using the “relaxed” header canonicalization defined in Section 3.4.2 of [RFC6376]. Pass them to the hash function.
    5. Retrieve the final digest from the hash function.
    6. Retrieve the public key identified by the “s” and “d” tags in the ARC-Seal, as described in Section 8.
    7. Determine whether the signature portion (“b” tag) of the ARC-Seal and the digest computed above are valid according to the public key.
    8. If the signature is not valid, the chain state is “fail” and the algorithm stops here.
  5. If all seals pass validation, then the chain state is “pass”, and the algorithm is complete.

The verifier should record the cv state for subsequent use by any sealing which may be done later (potentially after message modification) within the same trust boundary. The cv state may be recorded by sealing at the time of verification in an initial ARC set (for the ADMD) or may be recorded out of band depending on the architecture of the ADMD.

7. Signer Actions

This section includes a walk-through of the actions an ARC signing implementation takes when presented with a message.

The signing agent should undertake the following steps:

  1. Do any authentication steps that the ADMD normally does:
    1. If a message is traveling within the same trust boundary, this would include any internal trust conveyed with the message;
    2. If a message is coming from outside the same trust boundary, this would include any SPF / DKIM / DMARC / other authentication evaluation steps.
  2. Do any DKIM signing or authentication assertion steps that the ADMD normally does.
  3. Generate and optionally attach to the message an Authentication-Results header field using the ADMD’s authserv-id (see Section 2.5 of [RFC7601]) indicating whatever authentication might have been done by the MTA, or possibly indicate that none was done.
  4. Build and attach the new ARC set:
    1. If an ARC chain exists on the message, then set “N” equal to the highest instance number found on the chain (i=); otherwise set “N” equal to zero for the following steps.
    2. Generate and attach to the message an ARC-Authentication-Results header field using instance number N+1 and the same content from the previous step.
    3. Generate and attach to the message an ARC-Message-Signature header field using the general algorithm described in Section 5 of [RFC6376] and as modified in Section 5.1 above, using instance number N+1.
    4. Generate and attach to the message an ARC-Seal header field using the general algorithm described in Section 5.3 above, the chain validation status as determined in Section 6, and instance number N+1.

8. Key Management

The public keys for ARC header fields follow the same requirements, syntax and semantics as those for DKIM signatures, described in Section 3.6 of [RFC6376]. Operators may use distinct selectors and/or domains for the ARC header fields at their own discretion.

9. Usage of ARC and Chain Validity

9.1. Relationship between DKIM-Signature and AMS signing scopes

DKIM-Signatures SHOULD never sign any ARC header fields.

9.2. Assessing Chain Validity Violations

There are a wide variety of ways in which the ARC set of header fields can be broken. Receivers need to be wary of ascribing motive to such breakage although patterns of common behaviour may provide some basis for adjusting local policy decisions.

This specification is exclusively focused on well-behaved, participating intermediaries that result in a valid chain of ARC-related header fields. The value of such a well-formed, valid chain needs to be interpreted with care since malicious content can be easily introduced by otherwise well-intended senders through machine or account compromises. All normal content-based analysis still needs to be performed on any messages bearing a valid chain of ARC header sets.

9.3. Marking and Sealing “cv=fail” (Invalid) Chains

The header fields signed by the AS header field b= value in the case of a chain failure MUST be only the matching ‘i=’ instance headers created by the MTA which detected the malformed chain, as if this newest ARC set was the only set present.

9.4. Handling DNS Problems While Validating ARC

DNS failures to resolve or return data which is needed for ARC validation SHOULD result in a 421 tempfail during the SMTP conversation with the sending system. Temporary or intermittent DNS problems will generally not be sufficiently transitory to allow a mediator to obtain a different result during the ordinary transit duration so it is better to have the source system queue the problematic message(s) than to generate (potential) backscatter.

Operators of systems which mediate mail should be aware that broken DNS records (or malfunctioning name servers) will result in undeliverable mail to any downstream ARC-verifying ADMDs.

DNS-based failures to verify a chain are treated no differently than any other ARC violation. They result in a “cv=fail” verdict.

9.5. Responding to ARC Validity Violations

If a receiver determines that the ARC chain has failed, the receiver MAY signal the breakage through the extended SMTP response code 5.7.7 [RFC3463] “message integrity failure” [ENHANCED-STATUS] and corresponding SMTP response code.

9.6. Recording the Results of ARC Evaluation

Receivers MAY add an “arc=[pass|fail|policy]” method annotation into a locally-affixed Authentication-Results [RFC7601] header field along with any salient comment(s).

9.6.1. Output Information from an ARC Evaluation

The evaluation of a series of ARC sets results in the following data which MAY be used to inform local-policy decisions:

In the case of a failed chain, only the terminal ARC set is covered by the ARC-Seal so the reporting is limited to the findings in that terminal ARC set.

9.6.2. Reporting ARC Effects for DMARC Local Policy - Interim

[[ Note: Discussion on the IETF DMARC-WG list has indicated some interest in more substantial reporting for analytic purposes. To support that effort, the following guidance is provided only as an interim, minimal data set. A more complete reporting construct will be specified in a related spec - TBD. (see the additional fields specified in Section 5.1.1) ]]

Receivers SHOULD indicate situations in which ARC evaluation influenced the results of their local policy determination. DMARC reporting of ARC-informed decisions is augmented by adding a local_policy comment explanation containing the list of data discovered in the ARC evaluation (Section 9.6.1 and Section 5.1.1):

<policy_evaluated>
  <disposition>delivered</disposition>
  <dkim>fail</dkim>
  <spf>fail <comment>source.ip=10.0.0.1</comment></spf>
  <reason>
   <type>local_policy</type>
   <comment>arc=pass ams[2].d=d2.example ams[2].s=s1 as[2].d=d2.example 
     as[2].s=s2 as[1].d=d1.example as[1].s=s3</comment>
  </reason>
</policy_evaluated>

In the suggested sample, d2.example is the sealing domain for ARC[2] and d1.example is the sealing domain for ARC[1].

Mediators SHOULD generate DMARC reports on messages which transit their system just like any other message which they receive. This will result in multiple reports for each mediated message as they transit the series of handlers. DMARC report consumers should be aware of this behaviour and make the necessary accommodations.

10. Supporting Alternate Signing Algorithms

[[ Note: Some additional development of this section is needed. ]]

In the following branch diagrams, each algorithm is represented by an ‘A’ or ‘B’ at each hop to depict the ARC chain that develops over a five hop scenario. ‘x’ represents a hop that does not support that algorithm.

Note that during a transitional period where multiple algorithms are allowed, all of the statements in this spec which refer to “exactly one set of ARC headers per instance” need to be understood as “at least one set per instance and no more than one instance-set per algorithm”.

10.1. Introductory Period

Intermediaries MUST be able to validate ARC chains build with either algorithm but MAY create ARC sets with either (or both) algorithm.

The introductory period should be at least six (6) months.

10.2. Co-Existence Period

Intermediaries MUST be able to validate ARC chains build with either algorithm and MUST create ARC sets with both algorithms. Chains ending with either algorithm may be used for the result.

10.3. Deprecation Period

ARC sets built with algorithms that are being deprecated MAY be considered valid within an ARC chain, however, intermediaries MUST NOT create additional sets with the deprecated algorithm.

The deprecation period should be at least two (2) years.

10.4. Obsolescence Period

ARC sets built with algorithms that are obsolete MUST NOT be considered valid within an ARC chain. Intermediaries MUST NOT create any sets with any obsoleted algorithm.

11. Privacy Considerations

The ARC chain provides a verifiable record of the handlers for a message. Anonymous remailers will probably not find this to match their operating goals.

12. IANA Considerations

This specification adds three new header fields as defined below.

12.1. Authentication-Results Method Registry Update

This draft adds one item to the IANA “Email Authentication Methods” registry:

12.2. Definitions of the ARC header fields

This specification adds three new header fields to the “Permanent Message Header Field Registry”, as follows:

13. Implementation Status

[[ Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication along with the reference to [RFC6982]. ]]

This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.

This information is known to be correct as of the seventh interoperability test event which was held on 2017-07-15 & 16 at IETF99.

13.1. GMail test reflector and incoming validation

Organization: Google

Description: Internal production implementation with both debug analysis and validating + sealing pass-through function

Status of Operation: Production - Incoming Validation

Coverage: Full spec implemented as of [ARC-DRAFT-06]

Licensing: Proprietary - Internal only

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: arc-discuss@dmarc.org

13.2. AOL test reflector and internal tagging

Organization: AOL

Description: Internal prototype implementation with both debug analysis and validating + sealing pass-through function

Status of Operation: Beta

Coverage: ARC chain validity status checking is operational, but only applied to email addresses enrolled in the test program. This system conforms to [ARC-DRAFT-06]

Licensing: Proprietary - Internal only

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: arc-discuss@dmarc.org

13.3. dkimpy

Organization: dkimpy developers/Scott Kitterman

Description: Python DKIM package

Status of Operation: Production

Coverage:

Licensing: Open/Other (same as dkimpy package = BCD version 2)

Contact Info: https://launchpad.net/dkimpy

13.4. OpenARC

Organization: TDP/Murray Kucherawy

Description: Implemention of milter functionality related to the OpenDKIM and OpenDMARC packages

Status of Operation: Beta

Coverage: Built to support [ARC-DRAFT-06]

Licensing: Open/Other (same as OpenDKIM and OpenDMARC packages)

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: arc-discuss@dmarc.org

13.5. Mailman 3.1+ patch

Organization: Mailman development team

Description: Integrated ARC capabilities within the Mailman 3.1+ package

Status of Operation: Patch submitted

Coverage: Unknown

Licensing: Same as mailman package - GPL

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: https://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/contact.html

13.6. Copernica/MailerQ web-based validation

Organization: Copernica

Description: Web-based validation of ARC-signed messages

Status of Operation: Beta

Coverage: Built to support [ARC-DRAFT-05]

Licensing: On-line usage only

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: https://www.copernica.com/

13.7. Rspamd

Organization: Rspamd community

Description: ARC signing and verification module

Status of Operation: Production, though deployment usage is unknown

Coverage: Built to support [ARC-DRAFT-06]

Licensing: Open source

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: https://rspamd.com/doc/modules/arc.html and https://github.com/vstakhov/rspamd

13.8. PERL Mail::Milter::Authentication module

Organization: FastMail

Description: Email domain authentication milter, previously included SPF / DKIM / DMARC, now has ARC added

Status of Operation: Intial validation completed during IETF99 hackathon with some follow-on work during the week

Coverage: Built to support [I-D.ARC]

Licensing: Open Source

Implementation Notes:

Contact Info: https://github.com/fastmail/authentication_milter

14. Security Considerations

The Security Considerations of [RFC6376] and [RFC7601] apply directly to this specification.

Inclusion of ARC sets in the header of emails may cause problems for some older or more constrained MTAs if they are unable to accept the greater size of the header.

Operators who receive a message bearing N ARC sets have to complete up to N+1 DNS queries to evaluate the chain (barring DNS redirection mechanisms which can increase the lookups for a given target value). This has at least two effects:

  1. An attacker can send a message to an ARC partipant with a concocted sequence of ARC sets bearing the domains of intended victims, and all of them will be queried by the participant until a failure is discovered. The difficulty of forging the signature values should limit the extent of this load to domains under control of the attacker.
  2. DKIM only does one DNS check per signature, while this one can do many (per chain). Absent caching, slow DNS responses can cause SMTP timeouts; and backlogged delivery queues on mediating systems. This could be exploited as a DoS attack.

14.1. Message Content Suspicion

Recipients are cautioned to treat messages bearing ARC sets with the same suspicion that they apply to all other email messages. This includes appropriate content scanning and other checks for potentially malicious content. The handlers which are identified within the ARC chain may be used to provide input to local policy engines in cases where DMARC validation fails (due to mediation impacting SPF attribution, DKIM validity or alignment).

15. References

15.1. Normative References

[RFC1345] Simonsen, K., "Character Mnemonics and Character Sets", RFC 1345, DOI 10.17487/RFC1345, June 1992.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2142] Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions", RFC 2142, DOI 10.17487/RFC2142, May 1997.
[RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, DOI 10.17487/RFC2606, June 1999.
[RFC3463] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 3463, DOI 10.17487/RFC3463, January 2003.
[RFC4686] Fenton, J., "Analysis of Threats Motivating DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)", RFC 4686, DOI 10.17487/RFC4686, September 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008.
[RFC5585] Hansen, T., Crocker, D. and P. Hallam-Baker, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Service Overview", RFC 5585, DOI 10.17487/RFC5585, July 2009.
[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009.
[RFC5863] Hansen, T., Siegel, E., Hallam-Baker, P. and D. Crocker, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Development, Deployment, and Operations", RFC 5863, DOI 10.17487/RFC5863, May 2010.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Hansen, T. and M. Kucherawy, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76, RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011.
[RFC6377] Kucherawy, M., "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Mailing Lists", BCP 167, RFC 6377, DOI 10.17487/RFC6377, September 2011.
[RFC6651] Kucherawy, M., "Extensions to DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) for Failure Reporting", RFC 6651, DOI 10.17487/RFC6651, June 2012.
[RFC7208] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", RFC 7208, DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014.
[RFC7601] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status", RFC 7601, DOI 10.17487/RFC7601, August 2015.

15.2. Informative References

[ARC-DRAFT-05] Andersen, K., Long, B. and S. Jones, "Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol (I-D-06)", n.d..
[ARC-DRAFT-06] Andersen, K., Long, B. and S. Jones, "Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) Protocol (I-D-05)", n.d..
[ARC-TEST] Blank, S., "ARC Test Suite", January 2017.
[ARC-USAGE] Jones, S., Adams, T., Rae-Grant, J. and K. Andersen, "Recommended Usage of the ARC Headers", December 2017.
[ENHANCED-STATUS] "IANA SMTP Enhanced Status Codes", n.d..
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013.
[RFC7489] Kucherawy, M. and E. Zwicky, "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015.
[RFC7960] Martin, F., Lear, E., Draegen. Ed., T., Zwicky, E. and K. Andersen, "Interoperability Issues between Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) and Indirect Email Flows", RFC 7960, DOI 10.17487/RFC7960, September 2016.

Appendix A. Appendix A - Example Usage (Obsolete but retained for illustrative purposes)

[[ Note: The following examples were mocked up early in the definition process for the spec. They no longer reflect the current definition and need various updates which will be included in the next draft. ]]

A.1. Example 1: Simple mailing list

A.1.1. Here’s the message as it exits the Origin: 

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrvQw
     bv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3TRJl
     gotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@dmarc.org
Subject: Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.1.2. Message is then received at example.org

A.1.2.1. Example 1, Step A: Message forwarded to list members

Processing at example.org:

Here’s the message as it exits example.org:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF1F5
     vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3A+m4bw
     a6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.1.3. Example 1: Message received by Recipient

Let’s say that the Recipient is example.com

Processing at example.com:

Here’s what the message looks like at this point:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from example.org (example.org [208.69.40.157])
    by clothilde.example.com with ESMTP id 
    d200mr22663000ykb.93.1421363207
    for <fmartin@example.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: clothilde.example.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
     1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
     A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrvQw
     bv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3TRJl
     gotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.2. Example 2: Mailing list to forwarded mailbox

A.2.1. Here’s the message as it exits the Origin: 

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrvQw
     bv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3TRJl
     gotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.2.2. Message is then received at example.org

A.2.2.1. Example 2, Step A: Message forwarded to list members

Processing at example.org:

Here’s the message as it exits Step A:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
     1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
     A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.2.2.2. Example 2, Step B: Message from list forwarded

The message is delivered to a mailbox at gmail.com
Processing at gmail.com:

Here’s what the message looks like at this point:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
    s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=pass; 
    b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwDWR
     YbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF/sut
     txO+RRNr0fCFw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
    h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:
     x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:
     list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:reply-to:
     list-unsubscribe:DKIM-Signature;
    bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBmfhS
     LF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJRFeM
     KdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwDBJtXw
     bQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
    for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: i=2; gmail.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=none:
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
     1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
     A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.2.3. Example 2: Message received by Recipient

Let’s say that the Recipient is example.com
Processing at example.com:

Here’s what the message looks like at this point:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from mail-ob0-f188.google.com (mail-ob0-f188.google.com
    [208.69.40.157]) by clothilde.example.com with ESMTP id
    d200mr22663000ykb.93.1421363268
    for <fmartin@example.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: clothilde.example.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
    s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=pass; 
    b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwDWR
     YbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF/sut
     txO+RRNr0fCFw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
    h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:
     x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:
     list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:reply-to:
     :list-unsubscribe:DKIM-Signature;
    bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBmfhS
     LF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJRFeM
     KdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwDBJtXw
     bQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
    for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: i=2; gmail.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
     1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
     A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=d1.example;
    s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:
     Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.3. Example 3: Mailing list to forwarded mailbox with source

A.3.1. Here’s the message as it exits the Origin: 

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61T
     X6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69EU
     8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=MIME-Version:CC:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijrv
     Qwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4Gd3
     TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.3.2. Message is then received at example.org

A.3.2.1. Example 3, Step A: Message forwarded to list members with source

Processing at example.org:

Here’s the message as it exits Step A:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=pass; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF
     1F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3
     A+m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=MIME-Version:CC:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.3.2.2. Example 3, Step B: Message from list forwarded with source

The message is delivered to a mailbox at gmail.com
Processing at gmail.com:

Here’s what the message looks like at this point:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
ARC-Seal: i=3; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
    s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=pass; 
    b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwD
     WRYbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF
     /suttxO+RRNr0fCFw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=3; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
    h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender
     :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list
     :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
     :list-unsubscribe:reply-to;
    bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBm
     fhSLF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJ
     RFeMKdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwD
     BJtXwbQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
    for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: i=3; gmail.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=pass; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF1
     F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3A+
     m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=MIME-Version:CC:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYij
     rvQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD
     4Gd3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

A.3.3. Example 3: Message received by Recipient

Let’s say that the Recipient is example.com
Processing at example.com:

Here’s what the message looks like at this point:

Return-Path: <jqd@d1.example>
Received: from mail-ob0-f188.google.com (mail-ob0-f188.google.com
    [208.69.40.157]) by clothilde.example.com with ESMTP id
    d200mr22663000ykb.93.1421363268
    for <fmartin@example.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: clothilde.example.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=3; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363253;
    s=notary01; d=gmail.com; cv=pass; 
    b=sjHDMriRZ0Mui5eVEOGscRHWbQHcy97lvrduHQ8h+f2CfIrxUiKOE44x3LQwDW
     RYbDjf5fcM9MdcIahC+cP59BQ9Y9DHwMDzwRTnM7NVb4kY+tSaVnLoIOaP9lF/s
     uttxO+RRNr0fCFw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=3; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=gmail.com; s=20120806;
    h=mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender
     :x-original-authentication-results:precedence
     :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
     :list-unsubscribe:reply-to;
    bh=2+gZwZhUK2V7JbpoO2MTrU19WvhcA4JnjiohFm9ZZ/g=;
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0Ab8Oi1ebYV/hIBm
     fhSLF1E80hMPcMijONfTQB6g5Hoh/kE6N2fgp6aSngL/WA3+g3Id8ElhXHvIGcJ
     RFeMKdJqiW5cxdqPTRW+BnR5ee6Tzg06kr265NTDIAU8p8fQNuLfZj49MMA+QwD
     BJtXwbQoZyRtb6X6q0mYaszUB8kw==
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so2728865ykq.10
    for <mailbox@gmail.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: i=3; gmail.com; spf=fail
    smtp.from=jqd@d1.example; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 
    header.i=@example.org; dmarc=fail; arc=pass
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=seal2015; d=example.org; cv=pass; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz6
     1TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L
     69EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=example.org; s=clochette; t=1421363105;
    bh=FjQYm3HhXStuzauzV4Uc02o55EzATNfL4uBvEoy7k3s=;
    h=List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:
     List-Help:List-Subscribe:Reply-To:DKIM-Signature;
    b=Wb4EiVANwAX8obWwrRWpmlhxmdIvj0dv0psIkiaGOOug32iTAcc74/iWvlPXpF1
     F5vYVF0mw5cmKOa824tKkUOOE3yinTAekqnly7GJuFCDeSA1fQHhStVV7BzAr3A+
     m4bwa6RIDgr3rOPJil678dZTHfztFWyjwIUxB5Ajxj/M=
Received: from segv.d1.example (segv.d1.example [72.52.75.15])
    by lists.example.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0EKaNU9010123
    for <arc@example.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:01:30 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; lists.example.org;
    spf=pass smtp.mfrom=jqd@d1.example;
    dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@d1.example; 
    dmarc=pass
Received: from [10.10.10.131] (w-x-y-z.dsl.static.isp.com [w.x.y.z])
    (authenticated bits=0)
    by segv.d1.example with ESMTP id t0FN4a8O084569;
    Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800 (PST)
    (envelope-from jqd@d1.example)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1421363107;
    s=origin2015; d=d1.example; cv=none; 
    b=pCw3Qxgfs9E1qnyNZ+cTTF3KHgAjWwZz++Rju0BceSiuwIg0Pkk+3RZH/kaiz61
     TX6RVT6E4gs49Sstp41K7muj1OR5R6Q6llahLlQJZ/YfDZ3NImCU52gFWLUD7L69
     EU8TzypfkUhscqXjOJgDwjIceBNNOfh3Jy+V8hQZrVFCw0A=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
    d=d1.example; s=20130426; t=1421363082;
    bh=EoJqaaRvhrngQxmQ3VnRIIMRBgecuKf1pdkxtfGyWaU=;
    h=MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
    b=HxsvPubDE+R96v9dM9Y7V3dJUXvajd6rvF5ec5BPe/vpVBRJnD4I2weEIyYijr
     vQwbv9uUA1t94kMN0Q+haFo6hiQPnkuDxku5+oxyZWOqtNH7CTMgcBWWTp4QD4G
     d3TRJlgotsX4RkbNcUhlfnoQ0p+CywWjieI8aR6eof6WDQ=
Message-ID: <54B84785.1060301@d1.example>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2015 15:00:01 -0800
From: John Q Doe <jqd@d1.example>
To: arc@example.org
Subject: [Lists] Example 1
 
Hey gang,
This is a test message.
--J.

Appendix B. Acknowledgements

This draft is the work of OAR-Dev Group.

The authors thank all of the OAR-Dev group for the ongoing help and though-provoking discussions from all the participants, especially: Alex Brotman, Brandon Long, Dave Crocker, Elizabeth Zwicky, Franck Martin, Greg Colburn, J. Trent Adams, John Rae-Grant, Mike Hammer, Mike Jones, Steve Jones, Terry Zink, Tim Draegen.

Grateful appreciation is extended to the people who provided feedback through the discuss mailing list.

Appendix C. Comments and Feedback

Please address all comments, discussions, and questions to dmarc@ietf.org. Earlier discussions can be found at arc-discuss@dmarc.org.

Authors' Addresses

Kurt Andersen LinkedIn 1000 West Maude Ave Sunnyvale, California 94085 USA EMail: kurta@linkedin.com
Brandon Long (editor) Google EMail: blong@google.com
Steven Jones (editor) TDP EMail: smj@crash.com
Murray Kucherawy (editor) TDP EMail: superuser@gmail.com