On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 1:19 PM Pete Resnick <resn...@episteme.net> wrote:
> Murray, are you looking for existing documents to be listed in the > charter that might be proposed for adoption, or do you want a more > detailed description of what documents that will fulfill the charter > will contain? > The former. It seems common (though not mandatory) these days to list starting documents in charters when some are available, so if we have some that the proponents want to offer up as starting points, we may as well put them in. > I agree it's not a showstopper. 5322's discussion of "Resent-*" fields > (see particularly the "Note:" on forwarding in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.html#section-3.6.6) goes beyond > single posting/delivery, and I think this work can do the same. I do of > course think that mailing lists, particularly those that rewrite the > contents of messages, are the elephant in the room for all of this work, > but I think the folks proposing this work have a handle on how much work > they've bitten off. (And I'll give Murray a hard time for saying that > this is about intermediaries between injection and delivery; as Dave > below, it is a series of injections and deliveries.) Although it's common these days that most SMTP transactions are basically sender to recipient, it's also true that there's still some legitimate relaying going on, and moreover that some of those relays can do DKIM signing and/or verifying; a relay might sign to say "Yep, I processed this, and it passed my spam filters that you pay me to apply for you" and it might verify to pick off any obvious malicious mutations that DKIM helps it to detect. So when I talk about intermediaries, it's those cases I have in mind. They have a limited, but non-null, role. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
