It appears that Dave Crocker <[email protected]> said: >On 4/29/2025 1:33 AM, John Levine wrote: >> I don't expect MUAs like Outlook or Thunderbird (or for us old guys Alpine) >> to support DKIM2 either, for >> ths same reason. They submit new mail to their MSA and it takes care of >> DKIM2 signing. You know, just >> like it takes care of DKIM signing now. > > >There is a difference between implementation choices and a design that >constrains those choices. > >DKIM can be, and has been implemented, in originating and receiving >MUAs. Works fine.
As I think would be evident to anyone who's read the documents, there is nothing in DKIM2 that makes it much harder to implement in an MUA than DKIM, although like DKIM, the hassle of configuring a signing key into the MUA makes it more trouble than it's worth for outbound mail. >There seems to be a continuing need for people to be more diligently >indoctrinated into the perspective represented by the End to End Arguments. Um, per what I said above, they have no relevance I can see to what we are doing. It's not impossible to do E2E, but it's unlikely to be worth the effort. While I appreciate E2E as a general principle, it isn't a big secret that there are large economies of scale in mail handling, particularly in spam and malware filtering where you can see far more useful patterns in large mail flows than a single user's mail. I think it is swell that any MUA can talk to any MDA and MSA (give or take OAUTH) and that we could invent JMAP without having to break anything else, but I also don't think saying "E2E" elucidates anything. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
