On 11 Apr 2025, at 13:00, Richard Clayton wrote: > The list of header fields is currently > > Author > Bcc
Bcc header field? Doesn’t that contradict the “blank” carbon copy? > It also reduces the size of every (cautious) email by 383 bytes (766 if > the oversigning is not default) ... and there's a carbon footprint issue > here that we should not ignore without careful consideration 383/766 bytes seems insignificant in comparison to the huge, opaque header fields being added by some email providers that provide little utility except perhaps to themselves. For example, a message I recently sent to myself from Microsoft Outlook had 6629 charaacters of x-ms-* and x-microsoft-* header fields (in addition to ARC-* and a number of other header fields I don’t recognize). Is any similar consideration being given to those header fields? If it’s just for their own use, shouldn’t they store the data themselves and look it up based on message identifier rather than burdening everyone else with it? We made a similar optimization when designing DKIM not to include the public key in the signature and publish a digest of it in the DNS. This turned out to be the wrong thing when public key sizes had to increase and the DNS couldn’t easily accommodate that. Let’s not make an analogous mistake here. -Jim _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
