On Sun, Sep 20, 2026 at 8:24 AM Richard Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >It's possible I'm overreading the relationship > >between draft-ietf-dkim-dkim2-spec and this proposal, and if fact what you > >are proposing is to support i=1. If so, as Pietro points out, evaluating > >DMARC at i=1 can simplify this proposal. > > I am in favour of the "enhanced-for-DKIM2 DMARC" and relevant MUAs using > the i=1 value of the RFC5322 header field. > > But whatever we decide, the notion that every hop rewrites the RFC5322 > - From header field is nonsense. Your draft says that. If you think my > - -spec document says that then please cite the paragraph and will ensure > that the text is modified appropriately > > My document says this, and I'm stripping that text out. -Wei
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
