Hi, On 19.08.2025 13:07, Kai Engert wrote:
However, I'd prefer that unobtrusive signatures are transported as part of the message body, and that the mechanism is kept separate from DKIM*, see also what I wrote in the other message today.
Having used both S/MIME and GPG MIME signatures, having it as part of the message body (as a MIME part) does generally function fairly well (excluding some gateways), but a lot of MUAs show the signature as an attachment and that really confuses a lot of regular end-users.
I think having it as a header will likely be the least obtrusive variant that causes less confusion for recipients. I'd like to see it tried in practice.
Best, Taavi _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
