Michael Thomas wrote in
:
|On 3/6/25 3:34 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
|> In message <799da3ac-0b80-4aa4-857d-25d1b1027...@mtcc.com>, Michael
|> Thomas writes
|>
|>> 3) Any intermediary along the mail path is completely at liberty to
|>> (re)sign a message already with DKIM.
|>
|> Yes and m
It appears that Laura Atkins said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Right, almost everything that comes out of a commercial ESP is single
>recipient already - and many of those actually use unique MAIL FROM: addresses
>as well.
>
>> But mailing lists might be a very different story. This week’s delays on
>> IET
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Murray S. Kucherawy
writes
>The argument has been made that the bulk of Internet mail these
>days is single recipient anyway, so the load increase this would
>cause is negligible.
>
>Someone who has data to back up that
On Wed 12/Mar/2025 15:51:44 +0100 Allen Robinson wrote:
Definition of forwarding
In the context of DKIM2, this is the act of accepting a message with some
821.To address and resending it to some number of other 821.To addresses,
potentially after modifying the message. This definition covers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <1ab921c3-9ebd-4e81-8d19-c3772b02d...@dcrocker.net>, Dave
Crocker writes
>On 3/6/2025 5:07 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> Yesterday (Wednesday) at $DAYJOB the percentage of mail delivered to a
>> single recipient (rather than 2 or more) was
Alessandro Vesely wrote in
<8e3080de-64c8-40ae-87be-9538bd2be...@tana.it>:
|On Wed 12/Mar/2025 15:51:44 +0100 Allen Robinson wrote:
|>> Definition of forwarding
|>
|> In the context of DKIM2, this is the act of accepting a message with \
|> some
|> 821.To address and resending it to some nu
On 6 Mar 2025, at 14:35, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
...a german one that is known to be no good to customers...
OK, this is going to stop right now.
In the IETF, we do not make comments on anyone's personal traits,
company reputations, or other ad hominem comments in our discussions.
Steffen,
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250315233133.olukXXgT@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Alessandro Vesely wrote in
| <8e3080de-64c8-40ae-87be-9538bd2be...@tana.it>:
...
||If signing 821.To could somehow be made into a separate signature, the
||"classic" alias forwarding would not break the other (part of t
On Sun, Mar 16, 2025, at 04:50, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > I think an argument could be made that this definition doesn't apply to all
> > relays. Systems that don't need to change 821.From or 821.To and don't
> > modify
> > the message being transferred would probably be able to operate witho
