On 3/26/25 1:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:14 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
AKA "layering violation". That's on what is being proposed here,
not on SMTP. Made worse by constricting perfectly valid SMTP behavior.
...which isn't to say it shouldn't be done, but we have to acknowledge
that that's what we're doing, and doing it intentionally, and
understanding the implications and added complexity.
Does anybody know if there is a precedent for a message/SMTP layering
violation that limits what you can and can't do with SMTP?
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
