-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <[email protected]>, R.
Latimer <[email protected]> writes
>I would broadly support the idea of allowing senders to explicitly allow
>modifications if it extended to restricting such modifications to
>designated domains. This addresses the issue with marketing platforms in
>particular needing to have keys for the customer's domain in order to
>insert tracking links, as they could explicitly be permitted to make
>changes.
"needing to have keys" has not proved to be an obstacle for DKIM1
A very common arrangement is for the brand to set up a CNAME rather than
sharing key material. When key material _is_ shared there is invariably
a sender-company-specific selector involved, so that the brand can
withdraw signing permission at any time.
Although there is a notional email sent by the brand which the ESP then
sends out at scale in the real world everything happens on the ESP
platform and the "notional email" never exists.
So, "adding tracking links" is not IMO a very relevant use case; and
because it can cause changes all over the body, would prove rather
complex for receivers to validate.
>Only allowing specific domains to modify e-mail and limiting those
>modifications would be a reasonable compromise that might reduce some of
>the opposition to the current proposals, while preserve some degree of
>implementation flexibility.
The suggestion that domain A could add a header field on a per-email
basis that says "Domain B can make any changes to this email it wishes"
might be workable. That is, give carte blanche permission rather than
only allowing specific modifications.
However, as above, would that actually be used by anyone ? There's going
to be a contractual relationship underpinning this which would be just
the same as that underpinning the DKIM1 arrangements discussed above; so
why would brands or ESPs wish to change ??
>Continuation of transit for mailing lists that modify, would require the
>sender to identify lists and approve changes based on recipient
>addresses. This could be manually managed by senders
that seems somewhat implausible
>or automated by way
>of an RBL-like registry of reputable mailing lists
as does that
>or other means.
- --
richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same
Still you never see the change from day to day
And no-one notices the customs slip away"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBarpjomHfC/FfW545EQKM8gCg+rpawEf42G9uE9vZ1MoGmMSehr0Anj9+
GflTon2SIhcmhlyXUxWDPdFB
=qefA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
