On 10/8/2021 1:51 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Language like 'wrap messages' typically means making the content
inaccessible except to a recipient that supports the wrapping mechanism.
I meant message/rfc822 MIME parts. I agree that some MUAs support
them better than others, despite them having been standardized 25
years ago.
Saying 'message digest' typically means a hash
No, I mean like a mailing list digest, you know, the one daily message
with all of the day's messages as message/rfc822 MIME parts. Same 25
years, same so-so support.
I guess I'm not the only one who thinks "message digest" has a
different, long-standing meaning.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/4024/message-digest
There was a long list of additional entries, provided by a simple
search, that produced the same interpretation.
I am pretty sure I heard the term, with this meaning, going back 40
years, but maybe it was before that.
This is the problem with excessively casual references and no
explanation, when trying to have a technical discussion.
Changing DKIM is an infrastructure change, since it involves
components in the handling stream, rather than just the MUA.
That too, but if you want to recover the original unmunged message so
you know who to reply to, that involves the MUA.
Recover from what? You didn't explain what was distorting/hiding the
address.
In any event, the Author approach is rather substantially simpler than
any distorting/hiding process.
The Author field is a pure, incremental value-add. It only requires
MUA support, ...
Well, yeah, just like the other two. I don't understand the point here.
Since I pointed out how and why they are in fact fundamentally different
than the Author field, your comment, here is both wrong and confusing.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
