On 11/15/2024 10:55 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Just a side note...
On 13/11/2024 21:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
While 'indirect' has well-established context in many email technical
circles, I believe it does not have clear, consistent, and precise
meaning. So it needs to be defined here, with more than an example.
I see this is an extremely important point, since the movement that
has taken place with email is to consider tight integration of domain
name and sending platform, in substantial contrast with the way email
worked for perhaps 40 years. That is, 'indirect' is tending to be
treated as almost aberrant, or at least as problematic.
I prefer the latter term, "problematic", rather than "aberrant" or,
according to the upcoming SMTP standard, "misguided".
You might prefer more comfortable language but I was characterizing the
very problematic tone that I perceive permeating work in this space, in
recent years, and am trying to highlight how that tone establishes a
counter-productive approach to dealing with these issues.
Another example of this aberrant view is the insistence on misusing the
word 'spoofing'.
Sadly, Section 3.4 of rfc5321bis doesn't define forwarding any better.
Its definition of what "can be treated as a continuation of email
transit" is overly strict. In particular, forwarding that is limited
to the set of modifications and actions described there never breaks
typical DKIM signatures.
MTA relaying, vs. mediator -- eg, mailing list -- forwarding.
Reality differs.
I understand both those words, but not this combined use of them.
DMARC's alignment requirement is an attempt at capturing the concept
of legitimacy.
It is an attempt at defining and constraining a very specific kind of
limited legitimacy.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
*** bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social ***
mast: @dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
