It appears that Emanuel Schorsch <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 8:09 AM Pete Resnick <resnick= >[email protected]> wrote: > >> I basically agree with both Pietro and Richard here: I suspect that in >> the end, common practice is going to be "If the change recipe only >> modified the Subject and added a minimal (amount TBD) to the end of the >> body, then by policy I'll accept the message without a change to the >> From. Otherwise, by policy I'm going to bounce it unless I have a >> pre-existing trust relationship with the intermediary who did it." This >> is why I think the who discussion of From alignment and donotmodify is >> really kind of moot and not worth mentioning in the spec: If the changes >> are deemed to be "minimal", then the end system is going to let it >> through, and if the changes are more than "minimal" (which would include >> absolutely any deletion of bits of the body) by an unknown intermediary, >> they'll be rejected, regardless of a donotmodify or canmodify flag. >> > >Pete I agree with you that that seems like a likely prediction. That seems >like a chaotic and unpredictable arrangement. Isn't it better to have a >consistent way of handling it?
Probably not because experience tells us that senders will put stupid conditions on their mail to make it "more secure" which sensible receivers will ignore because it's mail their users want. Cynically, John PS: See for example, all the places that send DMARC p=reject to mailing lists. _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
