On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:55 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> This seems to presume that "dkim2" is some creature completely apart from > DKIM. That is not at all clear, and it's not clear what is being proposed > is anything more than plain old DKIM with a few new tags and some normative > text surrounding them. I don't think that changes anything wrt to DMARC as > they have orthogonal goals. > > We should definitely *not* be presuming that this is anything completely > different than DKIM, and frankly should stop calling it "dkim2" until it's > established that it is actually incompatible with DKIM. It hasn't been. > DKIMbis would be much more appropriate. > You are correct of course in that the hypothetical world I described (widespread adoption of a thing I called DKIM2 that acts as I hypothesize it will act) does not exist yet, and it may never exist. Similarly, the world you're describing where existing DKIM is modified as the end result of this group's world is just as hypothetical at this point, so I ask for your (collective) indulgence, please, to see that the question I posed is answered within the hypothetical context of a world where the thing I called DKIM2 does in fact exist. -- Todd Herr Some Guy in VA LLC t...@someguyinva.com 703-220-4153 Book Time With Me: https://calendar.app.google/tGDuDzbThBdTp3Wx8
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
