(no hat here)
On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 6:46 AM Richard Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I went through spec-06, bcp-01 and dns-00 looking for anything about header
> >size
> >limits in bytes and found nothing.
This is interesting, Mauro. Thanks for putting it together.
> try RFC5321 and if you cannot find it there then no formal limit exists
> and it is not, in my view, appropriate for DKIM2 to set one
The proposed text doesn't attempt to constrain 532{1,2} generally. It
tries to constrain what DKIM2 modules do to the message, which is
within this group's scope to consider.
> >so 63 hops of dual signatures
> >already passes Sendmail's default before any other header is counted
>
> why would any email travel 63 hops without something being broken ?
That's probably true, but I'm not sure how to address that claim. Is
the guidance something like "If you see 63 hops, or anything absurd
like that, you should ignore the message outright because something
has gone terribly wrong and anything you do will be meaningless or
possibly make things worse?"
> If you are adding 30K of recipes then I rather think you are doing
> something dumb and any sensible reputation system is going to dislike
> your email
Again, probably true. How can we express that advice either
normatively or within the BCP? Should we?
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
