On 3/23/25 3:40 AM, John Levine wrote:
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.
Sorry, what do rcpt-to's have to do with the bounce path once it's
received? AFAIKT from the authors, the motivation is "simplification".
There seems to be quite a bit of that, a lot of which is pretty dubious.
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.
The question has nothing to do with percentages. It has to do with why
it's needed at all and why it's necessary to limit what is a valid use case.
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.
I'm not sure what the point of this strawman is. Nobody is saying "don't
change anything" that I'm aware of.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
