On Mon, 13 Jul 2026, William Weiner wrote:
You are right that I overstated the case. Blocking mailing list mail under
p=reject was the expected behavior from the spec, not an irrational local
policy. The better lesson is that the spec worked exactly as intended and still
produced collateral harm to a legitimate use case that wasn't protected by the
BCP - and the workarounds required after the fact were worse than prevention
would have been.
You say you don't see harm in writing it down. That is all we are asking. Put
me in the once-bitten-twice-shy camp: I would rather have the normative
statement and not need it than need it and not have it.
Your use case is to put it mildly rather exotic. There's nothing wrong
with that, but I don't think we can expect people to do anything special
to ensure that it works.
Unless I'm missing something, your messages look like any other locally
originated one-hop messages. You and the final recipient may know that
there's history wrapped up inside it, but so long as the single signature
validates and the recipients don't complain, recipient mail filters will
treat it like any other single hop mail.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
