On Mon, Jun 1, 2026, at 17:58, John R Levine wrote: > > This is only true if the alignment between the d field and the mf/rt fields > > are possible, Wei and also I want to solve the synthetik mailflows that > > happen with 3rd party providers. > > > > Case 1: Is the Bulk Mail Providers want to sign as the 2nd or 3rd hop, but > > then need to introduce synthetic targets, that are more related to VERP but > > bring no benefit to most of the real world situations of Bulk Mail provider. > > If I understand what you're saying, you're proposing to add extra > complexity for everyone to make life slightly easier for bulk mailers. I > have a different plan--if they want us to keep delivering their junk, they > can do what we ask them to.
That framing isn't going to win friends and influence people, I suspect! I agree in part and disagree in part. People send way too much email, and much of it is unwanted. That said, the bulk nature and low quality of some email is orthogonal to the question of "is somebody sending on somebody else's behalf'. And there's definitely a discussion to have about who should bear which parts of the effort in which cases, how much we should add complexity to EVERY actor in the system to make things easier for one specific case. So let's look at the use cases and how they work under different proposals and whether this really is just a matter of defining either a fixed mailbox name (maybe that ship has sailed in general, but for a synthetic record it might be OK) which means "the next hop is also me" or allow bare domain or @domain next hop records for "the next hop is also me". Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd / Fastmail US LLC [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
