I'm part of that SMTP audience and I'm looking forward to reducing the number
of RCPT-TOs in a transaction to one. I also think of the joy of having a
cryptographic signature that covers MAIL-FROM and RCPT-TO in addition to the
already covered headers and the body of an email. Bringing up privacy risks for
a protocol like SMTP is a lame excuse as, while SMTP is stable, there is a lack
of any privacy related functionality in the base protocol that were only solved
by additions over time.
The re-chartering of the DKIM WG comes from a lot of frustrations Mailbox
Providers have in the current ecosystem that we (at least I) want to solve with
the involvement of the community and not by side stepping it and coming around
with a finished and polished solution. So you can see this as another addition
to the SMTP world that will hopefully solve the problems that are still around.
Problems that were perhaps lightheartedly described in the charter but are real
problems that at least for me as a Mailbox Provider I have to fight every
single day.
The only argument I find in your comments are, “I don’t want this to change and
therefore I am against this change.“ I don’t think that this is a proper way to
go forward in an ever changing environment.
Tobias Herkula
Senior Product Owner Mail Security
Product Management Mail Transfer & Mail Security
1&1 Mail & Media GmbH
________________________________________
From: Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu>
Sent: 05 March 2025 19:44
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: New drafts published
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250304225608.jcbQ5EUD@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
| <20250304221133.VfKY5pqy@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
||Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
|| <20250304205330.GtAvvE5w@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
...
|It is more than that.
|I find it sheer unbelievable that such a dramatic change of the
|entire SMTP infrastructure is handled in the backstreets of some
And not to talk about the possible privacy issues if such a DKIM2
header escapes into the wild, shall
| rt= | RFC5321.rcpt-to
but also
| mf= | RFC5321.mail-from
leave into the public. This is mitigated a bit due to that
*unbelievable* single-recipient constraint that is to become
imposed on SMTP (sic), but still, it bends 45 year old truths into
the obscene -- for no reason.
This is all bizarre, there is no other word i find.
And also, done "just like this", easy and sugared, as if it would
be the most natural thing of the world to move things which had
been private for 45 years into a possibly decade-long persisting
public! Who? Why? Really? No!!.
I assume you all have a good day anyway, i cannot imagine it is
otherwise.
Thank you,
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
