On Mon, 7 Apr 2025, Bron Gondwana wrote:
False. Maybe it's not clear enough, but that is not the intent.
2. Delta format - headers
For headers, the format is to completely replace all headers with a
particular name. [...]
Oh, OK, I missed that. It's worth calling out that it applies e
Yep, there's definitely more work to be done on making the text and format
clearer.
I agree that having text that "this is a general method for any header field,
and if is still your responsibility to produce the correct syntax for all
fields" or something.
Bron.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, at 14:33
Bron,
On 4/7/2025 10:53 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I buy this argument. You're quite correct, DKIM doesn't have any
actual problems. It's perfect. It does exactly what it's specified to do.
DKIM is also insufficient for the purpose for which it's trying to be
used. And there's an argument tha
On Sat, Apr 5, 2025, at 12:58, John R Levine wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >> If we could just say these headers only occur once, if you see two just
> >> give up, it makes the process somewhat simpler and more importantly ends
> >> the argument about oversigning.
> >
I buy this argument. You're quite correct, DKIM doesn't have any actual
problems. It's perfect. It does exactly what it's specified to do.
DKIM is also insufficient for the purpose for which it's trying to be used.
And there's an argument that "the purpose of a system is what it does".
The p
> On Apr 6, 2025, at 11:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The goals for the new effort are for a very different set of services. There
> is nothing wrong with wanting those services, but really, they are not DKIM.
>
> The semantics of the new effort really are orthogonal to DKIM. (And that is
>
