On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
> > So essentially we're creating a bunch of header bloat (creating duplicate > header fields with different names where that could be avoided) because > there are some MTAs that did not follow the specifications before. That > makes me unhappy, but what matters here is not the behavior of all MTAs, > it's the behavior of MTAs implementing ARC (that include instance number > tag/value). If there's an MTA in the middle that deletes DKIM-Signature, > it's not implementing ARC and the chain is broken. > The DMARC WG is explicitly *not* scoped to make normative changes to any other specifications so changing DKIM (for example) is not an available option. Deleting or otherwise breaking one or more of the DKIM-Signatures on a message has nothing to do with ARC per se. It's even possible that an ARC-implementing ADMD could do such a thing. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
