> On 15 Nov 2022, at 12:29, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:04 AM Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com > <mailto:la...@wordtothewise.com>> wrote: > Does it make sense to add in a brief discussion of ‘responsibility for the > message'? As I see it, responsibility implies able to do something against > the originator of the message or act to stop the message if it turns out to > be a problem. If it’s your customer and the mail is going out over your > network you can disconnect them. If the mail isn’t going out through your > network, you have very little control and if you don’t have control can you > really be responsible. > > Personally, I'd be fine leaving this for the WG to debate rather than > settling it in the charter. I think both positions are defensible.
+1 > RFC 6376 says "some responsibility"; it leaves open to discussion what that > really means. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Gmail (for example) filters > outgoing stuff looking for spam, but also that this has always been a > tactical arms race, and something you consider spam might not in that moment > agree with what their detection stuff can identify. Wei might argue that > their signature means "We attest that this passed through us, and we did our > best to make sure it was legitimate before it went out", than the more > absolute "We claim this is legitimate and we are willing to stake our > reputation on it" that some seem to infer. The latter might even be > incentive to consider not signing anymore. +1 laura -- The Delivery Experts Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
