> On 6 Mar 2025, at 06:59, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote: > > On 5 Mar 2025, at 21:19, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> wrote: >> >>> But that DKIM2 draft mutilates SMTP to *only* work in this one >>> recipient mode: even if a mailing-list has hundreds of Gmail >>> subscribers, where ACDC would (could) send one message to all of >>> those in a single transaction, DKIM2 sends hundreds! >>> >> >> The argument has been made that the bulk of Internet mail these days is >> single recipient anyway, so the load increase this would cause is >> negligible. >> >> Someone who has data to back up that claim could probably help us out here. > > I suspect strongly that it has a lot to do with the sender’s use case. > Marketing email is very often customized to the recipient (adding their name > perhaps, or changing the identifiers on embedded links) so those are single > recipient.
Right, almost everything that comes out of a commercial ESP is single recipient already - and many of those actually use unique MAIL FROM: addresses as well. > But mailing lists might be a very different story. This week’s delays on IETF > mailing lists make me wonder if that might have been significantly worse if > they had to be sent (and signed) individually to each recipient. I can certainly see a space where bulk mail moves to DKIM2 but regular mailing list mail or non-bulk mail stays at DKIM as it is now. I’m not sure there’s any downside to that. laura -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
