It appears that Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > > >I'm about half way through the audio session and just finished the >rationale for a single rcpt-to. I'd like to turn that rationale on it's >head: if this is pretty much the way the world operates now (which I >have no reason to doubt), why are we going out of our way to codify it >with as a protocol level MUST?
It's to make the reliable bounces work. I think it's explained reasonably well in the motivation draft. >The reason I keep harping on this is that I don't understand the value >of picking fights that need not be picked, cf the advice in 5321 that >Barry brought up. I doubt I will be the only person who reads this and >have alarm bells going off about changing the email architecture, ... This isn't changing the email architecture. If you don't want to use DKIM2, you can use as many rcpt to's as you want. In reality if you want to get your mail delivered these days ayou need to add DKIM signatures to the mail you send, and it seems to me that splitting the 0.02% of mail that currently has multiple recipients into separate transactions is a lot less of a change that trying to explain to everyone how to generate DKIM keys and put them in your DNS. R's, John PS: I'm not saying that DKIM wasn't a good idea, it was a fine idea, but the "don't change anything" ship sailed a long time ago. _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
