On 1/30/25 5:00 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 1:34 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
But I'm content to leave that discussion to the WG rather than
the charter.
I do think it's a valid discussion point to understand why this
has bubbled up to the top. I know there's been talk about this off
and on for quite a while, but it's never seemed very serious. That
makes me curious why it is now.
Basically, assuming it works, it gives a more reliable answer to "Did
the author domain actually send this?" than any of the DKIM policy
add-ons can.
Depending on the scope of what the mutations reversal is, a fair amount
of it has been available 20 years. New work might be more comprehensive,
but the concept is hardly new. The proposed new work also suffers from
the sender depending on something that's out of its control: that a
mailing list, for example, participates and a receiver cares, which is
far from a given.
So it's just curious to me why people think this is a problem worth
solving now after decades of disparaging the general idea. I had a
specific use case in mind: spear-phishing. This doesn't seem about that.
So I'm a little puzzled. I do think we should have a clear rationale for
why we are doing what we are going. That seems to be lacking in the charter.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
