On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:01 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 1:56 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I don't want to get into implementation discussions before we even > > have a charter, but I'm curious about how this could be made effective. > > I'd count it as a simple tool that might have incremental benefit. > > Simply give guidance that an MDA SHOULD remove the DKIM signature, > unless there is a local arrangement with the recipient not to. > (Obviously the local detail could swap the default the other way.) > > I would expect anything more elaborate to be in the range of diminishing > returns and, therefore, not worth the complexity, effort, etc. > Sorry, I was referring to Miles' suggestion about bulkiness detection (i.e., taking some kind of action based on seeing the same signature again), not the removal of signatures. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
