I agree with Bron. The carbon footprint discussion distracts away from what I think is the main purpose with a set of defined headers that have to be signed: Making sure senders don't forget to sign them. Personally I don't have a strong opinion if those headers are explicit or implicit. The key point is - if not signing those, the signature should be considered failing.
/E On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 9:03 AM Bron Gondwana <brong= 40fastmailteam....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025, at 13:17, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 4/13/2025 6:34 PM, Richard Clayton wrote: > > An average email received at $DAYJOB$ on Friday (UTC) to be placed into > the inbox was 81555 characters long; if it was automatically determined > to be "span" it was 28921 bytes long. > > > So, at the low end, less than 1/2 of 1%. > > And what will the incremental cost be, to the global infrastructure, when > getting everyone to do all of the changes being proposed? > > If 0.5% is considered important, it's reasonable to look for the other > side of cost/benefit. > > > I have tried hard, and will continue to try, to persuade Richard (and > others at the IETF to be fair) to drop this unpersuasive "reduce the carbon > footprint" argument for small efficiency wins. It's just not a good > argument and it distracts energy away from the things that will make > meaningful differences to the lives of abuse desks or end users. > > The only real "reduce carbon footprint" would be to reduce the amount of > email being sent That would be a 100% reduction in the byte size. > > Bron. > > > -- > Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd > br...@fastmailteam.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
