On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:26 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > I guess my concern is more along the lines of what solutions *aren't*. > There are a bunch of drafts trying to tie the envelope to the email and I > think there needs to be a meta discussion of whether that is a good idea or > not in general. Frankly that seems like an email architecture question not > just a DKIM question. It would be nice to know if there is precedent for > that in the larger community and what the implications are. Fwiw, I don't > really consider the DMARC "alignment" as tickling the larger question > because all it is doing is reporting on it, but a case could certainly be > made that it is. >
For what it's worth, the proposals that seek to offer a binding between the envelope and the message aren't making any sort of mandatory change to DKIM. It's entirely optional to the signer whether to make that connection using one of those proposals; conventional DKIM isn't being taken off the table. For instance, the idea I put forward suggests using two signatures, one that makes the binding and a typical one that does not. Such a tactic would leave the original signal about a message intact while possibly providing more, which seems to me to be strictly an improvement. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
