On 1/7/25 2:24 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Michael
Thomas <[email protected]> writes
> Well, I guess that gets to my other post the other day. If this can
> be an update to STD 76, shouldn't it be? There is a huge installed
> base of DKIM so a software update to it would probably get adopted
> a lot faster than something truly new. The things in the charter
> don't seem to necessitate it being a completely new something since
> it looks like it would require some new tags in the signature block
> and/or header fields.
new tags will not address the issue of error handling for intermediaries
which DKIM2 addresses by changing where DSNs are sent (and requiring
them to be passed back along the chain as needed). Similarly it will not
address the backscatter issue (viz it will allow accept and reject
strategies that are not currently practicable).
That presumes some particular solution, but it doesn't sound like it is
necessarily a breaking change to STD 76 itself. DKIM has nothing to say
about DSN's at all, after all.
The question at hand, imo, is whether a naive STD 76 receiver can go
about its business with an upgraded STD 76 sender for the basic
sign/verify operations. If we can do it, I think it would be really
beneficial and increase the likelihood of success.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
