On Tue, 2 Jun 2026, Bron Gondwana wrote:
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".
A bare domain name rather than a fake mailbox makes sense. But if there are two or three hops within a mail system with the same owner, the extra work to add two or three signature headers seems tiny. The body hash doesn't change which makes it pretty fast. That way receivers don't have to add more special cases.
Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
