On 4 Feb 2025, at 14:52, Dave Crocker wrote:
If your above statement is true, then why is it necessary to do the
reversal?
Might note was meant to explore the potential for addition of abuse,
but this question goes to the nature of responsibility for handlers:
Why doesn't one handler's taking responsibility eliminate the need to
worry about the predecessors.
I have been thinking along the same lines, but I’ll express it a
little differently. Suppose we had the ability to reverse a significant
proportion of modifications by intermediaries [or whatever we’re
calling them]:
* How would that be used by the recipient?
* Would it deliver the unmodified or the modified content?
* Or would some MUA perhaps have a button allowing the recipient user to
select which version they want?
* If so, would users actually use such a button?
* If there is concern about potential harmful content being added,
wouldn’t giving the user the ability to display it be potentially
dangerous?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
