Jan Dušátko writes:
> In my opinion, the verifiability of the place and time of origin needs
> to be addressed, which is one of the reasons to use DKIM:
> - Ed25519 has a security equivalent of 125b, a little less than the
> currently required security equivalent 128b (more-less the same)
> - Ed4
Bron Gondwana writes:
> DKIM2 provides an upgrade path where when the intermediate systems are
> upgraded to support DKIM2, every hop of the pathway is DKIM2 and you can
> eventually start requiring a full DKIM2 pathway to accept mail from more
> sites. I can anticipate a future DMARC-style techni
Wei Chuang writes:
> DKIM2 is meant to support forwarding and DMARC from the start. One area where
> we haven't looked deeply is at the interaction between forwarding and DMARC
> with DKIM2. We have been generally assuming that DKIM2 will expand passing
> scenarios for cases where DKIM and SPF wo
Dave Crocker writes:
> I am pretty sure my reading of that discussions is accurate, which
> simplifies to: the number of cases that currently use multiple
> recipients is vanishingly small, and so such support is not
> essential.
If you count in emails inside big companies, it seems that every
si
Dave Crocker writes:
> On 7/20/2025 7:43 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> > If you count in emails inside big companies, it seems that every
> > single email is CC'ed to dozen of people who might need that
> > information, and every single email will keep all the contex
Alessandro Vesely writes:
> On Sun 20/Jul/2025 16:43:35 +0200 Tero Kivinen wrote:
> >
> > If you count in emails inside big companies, it seems that every
> > single email is CC'ed to dozen of people [...]
> >
> > I am not sure if that kind of emails are inte
Dave Crocker writes:
> On 7/21/2025 3:26 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > The number of message recipients is
> > unrelated to the number of RCPT commands for the purpose of this
> > discussion, and the fact that messages often have many recipients does
> > not mean that MSAs and/or MTAs need to use mult
