On 4/11/2025 12:58 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
Email service providers will often add two, one on behalf of
the actual originator the other for themselves. A relay that
rewrites email from one domain to another will add two headers to
record the rewriting.
That's not a relay.
&TL;DR Good start; absent a bit more formality, it is hard to understand
how to implement the work.
I really like the goals laid out in this work. The original DKIM
couldn't accomplish what was being proposed, in particular
reversibility. I am excited about your direction, and I'm convinced
On 4/11/2025 1:04 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> Find the highest numbered DKIM2 header that reports a modification.
>> Undo the modification and repeat. When all modifications have been
>> done then there should be a match with the original signature (at
>> hop1). If not then th
On 4/11/2025 1:03 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> There has been a continuing need to be able to add/replace crypto
algorithms.
> So the dexterity is a legitimate need, but is not new. And it is
already
> supported in DKIM. And, really, it has nothing to do with the
status of P-Q
> concerns.
it
On 4/11/2025 1:02 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> 4.5. The "mailing list DMARC issue"
>>
>> *Issue:*
>>
>> Once an intermediate (for example, a mailing list or alumni
>> forwarder) makes a change to the header or body of a message, the
>> hashes covered by the sender's DKIM signatu
On 4/11/2025 1:01 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>
>> ESPs and other entities that send email on behalf of others have a
>> need to know when delivery errors occur.
> An ESP and other senders 'on behalf of' are not 'intermediary'. They
are agents
> of the author. Hence any issues for the
On 4/11/2025 1:00 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> *DKIM has nothing to do with bounces. Really. Nothing.*
> Nothing 'requires' rejection at SMTP transaction time.
Perhaps you could explain how backscatter is avoided if you do not
reject at SMTP transaction time ? We give one example of how yo
On 4/11/2025 1:00 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
Our current thinking, which will be reflected in documents Real Soon Now
is that we will provide a standard list of header fields that will be
required to be signed by default -- signers can add to this if they
wish. In each case we will sign all insta
On 4/11/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> The term forwarding is ambiguous. It is used to mean very different
types of
> behavior.
> *If 'forwarding' means every MTA, this is a massive infrastructure
> change to the entire Internet Mail service. *
> If it only means Intermediaries/m
On 4/11/2025 12:56 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> So, really, this is a failure of internal regulation and
accountability that is
> being externalized here.
Although that is strictly true, the recipients of the replayed email do
not see it that way.
That almost sounds like a reasonable point, e
On 4/11/2025 12:56 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
At the end of January Dave Crocker posted a review of the then current
"-01" version of draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation. This document has now
been split into an "-02" and draft-gondwana-dkim2-headers (-01).
And it is unfortunate, indeed, that this
11 matches
Mail list logo
