I'm about half way through the audio session and just finished the
rationale for a single rcpt-to. I'd like to turn that rationale on it's
head: if this is pretty much the way the world operates now (which I
have no reason to doubt), why are we going out of our way to codify it
with as a prot
I'm at about 1:10 in the audio, and the quoted are clips from the
transcribed audio. don't blame me for the quoted spelling errors :)
TL;DR: I still don't see anything that precludes this as a DKIM update.
* * *
> We need to have a signature per hop in order for this to work
What in this co
Dear Michael Thomas.
Michael Thomas wrote in
<80a3e172-3a1c-471a-b72b-3c07b4dd8...@mtcc.com>:
...
|Again, why? Especially if the receiver knows whether it's base DKIM vs
|upgraded DKIM via some explicit signaling with the tags from the sender?
|If they are just unknown tags, it will verify
On 3/21/25 11:28 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 21 Mar 2025, at 23:27, Michael Thomas wrote:
I think that this and the "header" draft would be better if they were
combined and far more fleshed out before the wg should adopt them.
Can you expand on this? They don't seem inseparable to me.
Well,
On Fri 21/Mar/2025 15:41:27 +0100 Todd Herr wrote:
I am of the belief that if and when DKIM2 reaches a state of widespread
adoption, there is no longer a need for Domain Owners signing with DKIM2 to
participate in DMARC, a belief I expressed during the IETF 122 meeting.
I wasn't at the meetin
