It appears that Hannah Stern <[email protected]> said: >I'm not sure if we should prohibit such machine learning techniques.
Mail systems will do it no matter what we say, so unless we want to look foolish, we won't say anything about it. >I've seen that donotexplode might be good for banking mails etc. (b2c >mail aimed at one specific customer that is not supposed to reach more >than this one recipient - making single forwards ok, but explosion not ok.) I think that was the intention. It's not a mechanical rule never to forward at all, but rather advice to allow the kind of forwarding one does for an individual. >> The DMARC mailing list case is the direct precedent: the WG believed the >> answer was obvious, didn't write >it down, and p=reject broke lists anyway. The cost of BCP text when the answer >is obvious is zero. The cost >of its absence proved not to be. I can assure you that when Yahoo turned on p=reject and broke all the mailing lists, they knew exactly what they were doing. We cannot force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. All we can say is if you want to interoperate, here's how to do it. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
