On 3/18/25 9:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:49 AM Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net>
wrote:
I agree that the single-address-per-envelope model doesn’t have
that problem. But I wonder if it might make it a little easier for
implementations to operate only on the message header and not the
envelope itself, so perhaps having the receiving MTA copy the
envelope address into a trace header field would be a good idea.
But you know much more about implementing DKIM than I do.
This is probably the one thing that really distinguishes this new
effort as being a new thing rather than a DKIM extension of some kind:
It relies on there being a leak of information between SMTP and the
message content. STD 76 observes that separation, but this new thing
relies on reaching across that line.
I don't really agree that makes it a "new thing" wrt DKIM though.
Wanting the layering violation of envelope and message might be new
thing, but it's not necessarily a DKIM thing since that violation can be
encoded as a new (trace) header which DKIM does or doesn't sign, as
usual. Whether it is or isn't encoded in the DKIM-Signature header to me
isn't a big deal one way or the other, but we should remember that there
is no necessity that it be one or the other.
My takeaway is that DKIM itself probably doesn't need to change much if
it all given what I've seen.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
