It appears that Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> said: >John R Levine writes: >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2026, Tero Kivinen wrote: >> > I think the whole idea of sender giving mandates to the whoever is >> > receiving the email is wrong. The sender should NOT give instructions >> >> In general I agree with you but that ship sailed a decade ago. > >So because DMARC and others have been written that way, we cannot >change that it in DKIM2? > >I was assuming DKIM2 is going to be something new, and better, so we >should change this aspect of it also. > > >> > So instead of donotexplode the sender should say something like >> > "onerecipient", meaning email was meant to be sent to one recipient. >> >> It's just a token the software looks at. It could equally well be >> "qokxonr". > >That would be better than donotexplode, as do not explode is something >that people will be interpreting when they are writing their >implementations.
Perhaps I am overoptimistic, but I hope people read the fripping RFC before they write their code rather than just guessing what a token means. >> > When would you be setting that flag when sending email? >> >> Receipts, bank statements, password resets, anything that is clearly for >> one recipient. > >Actually I do still want those even if it gets duplicated to my two >mailboxes... Implementors are allowed to use some intelligence. I don't think it is all that hard to say that some small number of copies of a donotexplode message is OK, particularly if they don't have other characteristics of list mail. >> > Why would it be useful for you to send that flag? >> >> To discourage mailing lists and the like from forwarding it if someone >> accidentally or maliciously sends it such a message. > >Mailing lists have been implementing ARC, why do you think they would >implement this? The obvious answer is to keep junk out of their lists. The donotexplode flag has utility for large mail systems. As I think Bron said, if across a mail system they see 100 or 1000 copies of a donotexplode message, they know something is wrong. (Two or three copies would presumably be OK.) You and I have mail systems too small to do that but I could imagine something like DCC that passed around message-ID hashes so we could share bulk measures. >> > email is from external source" warnings to emails, but what other use >> > there is for this flag? >> >> Same as above. I don't want them modifying my password reset URL either. >> It's advice to systems that modify mail that this message is not one they >> should forward. > >As those emails should NEVER include URLs that user is expected to >click, destroying all those emails would be beneficial, ... Um, you seem to be using a different Internet than the one I use. Password reset messages have URLs all the time and no amount of telling people they are stupid (even if it were true) is going to change that. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
