On 20/05/2024 09:06, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Content-Type: is a technical field
Not a term I've met before. Is there a formal definition?
And as far as "which forwarders need to change" goes -
isn't the entire point of DKIM to detect chages?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
On 19/05/2024 17:26, Wei Chuang wrote:
then rewrite the Content-type header mime
delimitter
Seems like including this header in the signed set would be
Best Practice?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To
On 06/03/2024 23:30, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Does this mean you do use Ed25519 and RSA since over four years in
regular email? It*brakes things*!?
Yes. And no, not that I've noticed.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list
On 06/03/2024 22:41, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
exam i do not know
exim, possibly?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
On 27/10/2023 15:56, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Which DKIM implementations are known to be willing to support this if it
were added?
If I saw interest, I'd be willing to add it to Exim.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list
On 09/08/2023 21:12, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
It seems to me that adding a per-recipient DKIM "sub-signature"
can be accomplished very cheaply, and "scales to
super-parallelism".
If by that you mean a distinct signing key per user, I don't think this
scales.
If you signed per-recipient a
On 09/08/2023 15:55, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
because it allows for better tracking and
association of bounces
This.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
On 07/08/2023 05:22, Jesse Thompson wrote:
For messages which are originally submitted as BCC and, depending on the
circumstances, it's necessary for us to identify the recipient in the headers,
what is/should be the standard header to use for this purpose? BCC?
Forwarded-to?
There is no
On 16/02/2023 23:17, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/16/2023 2:04 PM, Evan Burke wrote:
1hr is at the very low end of the scale, only appropriate in narrow, specific
circumstances. I think you're right that 2+ days is the right range for most
mail.
The historical common choice, for when to stop
On 26/11/2022 23:20, Barry Leiba wrote:
I will say that the use case that is broken by removing the signature
is the "re-send" case
There was another use-case already noted: where the MUA verifies the DKIM
for the purpose of display to the user. Example: the "DKIM Verifier"
add-on for
10 matches
Mail list logo
