On 28/07/2026 5:38 am, John Levine wrote:
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.
If you're referring to the continuation of e-mail transit rule I have
referred to several times, that doesn't apply in this case.
The RFC 5321 restrictions apply to mailing list messages specifically.
In other cases, this remains open to interpretation.
Regards,
R. Latimer
Inveigle.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
