On Wed 26/Mar/2025 20:09:33 +0100 Richard Clayton wrote:
In message , Alessandro Vesely
writes
On Mon 24/Mar/2025 20:19:29 +0100 Richard Clayton wrote:
Of course, If I trust the signer of the last signature, it would be fine to
check only that. Bat that would be too similar to ARC...
you
On 3/27/25 10:35 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote in
<9fa3835f-4991-4fa9-b6e2-1859aa66e...@mtcc.com>:
|On 3/26/25 12:09 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
|> It's not a question of hardness -- if you check more signatures than you
|> need to then you are heating up the planet unn
On Wed 26/Mar/2025 17:31:54 +0100 Wei Chuang wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 9:08 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Hmm... Delivered-To: doesn't seem to be a significant element. [...]
It's meant to be illustrative of some header updates during forwarding
where someone e.g. a mailing list may care
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.
This seems really premature.
Note that we have
On Mon 24/Mar/2025 19:21:23 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:53 AM Michael Thomas wrote:
Out of curiosity would, say, a mailing list that breaks the original
signature but signs on the mailing list's behalf count as "signed"? At some
level DKIM is about taking respo
On 3/26/2025 7:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
A terminology nit, but it's going to come up in the future so I'd like
to put it out there early before we have a big re-editing job to do:
In practical terms, people do not say header field.
But the spec does. And always has. For a very lon
