> On 8 Jan 2025, at 14:34, Richard Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > In message <[email protected] > il.com>, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> writes > >> The proposed charter alludes to extending or modifying DKIM, but >> I'm getting the impression now that we're more likely in the space >> of doing something that looks a lot like DKIM and probably builds >> upon it, but is ultimately distinct from it. I'm happy to be >> corrected, but if that's the case, > > that is what the group behind the existing IETF draft setting out the > issues with DKIM intended ... > > ... we were persuaded that it would be appropriate to discuss forming a > working group on this "DKIM1" list, but we were specifically not > proposing a DKIMbis
That’s what I remember from the EMAILCORE discussion in Dublin last November as well. The discussion about the charter would be on this list, but only because it was here, kinda related and very low volume. >> then it seems to me to be very >> likely that extending or modifying DKIM itself will end up being >> out of scope. > > as I pointed out yesterday there are a number of the things we wish to > achieve (such as capping crypto operations, avoiding backscatter and > allowing intermediaries (such as mailing lists and ESPs) to be able to > better handle delivery issues (DSNs pass them by unless they mangle > headers and that creates other issues). So if the charter mentions > these then a DKIMbis will most likely not be suitable I agree this isn’t a DKIMbis, but a new protocol that has some similarities with DKIM but also new features and points that make it a separate thing. laura -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise [email protected] Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
