On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:24 AM Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
> Joining the conversation a little date due to travel… > > On 21 Mar 2025, at 21:41, Todd Herr wrote: > > > - DKIM2, as currently described, allows and even encourages receivers > to > > reject messages that fail DKIM2 validation > > I got that sense from the discussion and from something in the motivation > draft that I can’t find right now. I think this is dangerous. > > Unless you’re saying that unsigned messages will also be rejected, you’re > describing a situation where a mis-signed message is treated more harshly > than an unsigned message. That means that a domain is taking a risk of > nondelivery by signing with DKIM2 in case it mis-signs messages or some > forwarder does so. > > I posit that a world with unsigned messages being rejected is indeed possible. Major mailbox providers have been saber rattling about "No auth, no entry" for quite some time, and the current Yahoo/Google requirements that at least some senders publish a DMARC record (among other things) in order to get mail considered for acceptance are a step in that direction. -- 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
