On 7/11/18 6:23 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net
<mailto:fen...@bluepopcorn.net>> wrote:
So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating
duplicate header fields with different names where that could be
avoided) because there are some MTAs that did not follow the
specifications before. That makes me unhappy, but what matters
here is not the behavior of all MTAs, it's the behavior of MTAs
implementing ARC (that include instance number tag/value). If
there's an MTA in the middle that deletes DKIM-Signature, it's not
implementing ARC and the chain is broken.
The DMARC WG is explicitly *not* scoped to make normative changes to
any other specifications so changing DKIM (for example) is not an
available option. Deleting or otherwise breaking one or more of the
DKIM-Signatures on a message has nothing to do with ARC per se. It's
even possible that an ARC-implementing ADMD could do such a thing.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to find that explicit statement in the charter.
On the other hand, it says that one of the options the WG has is to
propose "A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit
through intermediaries." So I don't see my suggestion as being out of scope.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
