It appears that MCN-IETF <[email protected]> said: >This is why I'm struggling a little with the recent discussions around >"re-originators". > >If an intermediary modifies the message, why isn't it simply another signer in >the existing chain?
Indeed it is. >If it creates what is effectively a new message, shouldn't that start a new >DKIM2 chain instead? Yes. >In other words, I'm wondering whether introducing a distinct "re-originator" >concept is actually necessary at the >protocol level, or whether the chain itself already expresses the sequence of >responsibility. As I have said several times, there's nothing special about mail from reoriginators, and there's no need to do anything special or say anything special about them. That is fortunate, since no matter what we say, they're such a tiny niche that nobody's going to go out of their way to handle them. I realize that at least one person disagrees with this, but I haven't found the arguments so far very persuasive. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
