The list headers - List-Id, List-Unsubscribe and similar - are covered by DKIM2 signature and are observable by any receiver writing policy, so the messages are not quite indistinguishable from arbitrary single-hop mail.
Most mail with List-* headers is B2C commercial mail, not mailing lists, and I'd expect a lot of that to be single hop.
With or without List-* headers, mail with one signature coming directly from the sender is quite normal. You know, like this one I just sent you.
R's, John
You may be right that receivers will, in practice, treat our privacy relay's messages as ordinary single-hop mail. That is precisely the outcome we want. The BCP request is not asking receivers to treat re-originating intermediaries differently - it is asking the BCP to explicitly confirm that a valid single-hop originator signature without a prior chain is the expected and correct output of this pattern. If ordinary receiver behavior is already what you describe, the sentence costs the WG nothing. If a receiver later writes policy that treats "no chain plus threading markers" as a suspicious signal, the normative text is what forecloses that interpretation before it spreads. The DMARC history is the cautionary case. p=reject worked as intended, the harm to mailing lists was foreseeable, and the absence of normative BCP protection for the mailing list pattern left no lever to push back on. A one-sentence statement is cheap insurance against the same dynamic.
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
