Re: [ietf-smtp] Curious, with this now being associated to emailcore, s

On 7/21/2020 3:37 AM, Dilyan Palauzov wrote:
> As useless mail headers do make emails heavier, I am in favour of
> removing DKIM-Signature headers, that are known to be broken, e.g.
> because the current host has modified (and resubmitted) the message.
> Or if not completely removed, then at least shortened by substituting
> to “b=invalided” or “b=invalidated-on-host-A.B”.  The latter is more
> useful than just having an invalid dkim-signature. (or removing the
> b=/bh= tags and putting instead a new tag containing the host where
> the signature was broken, which not really an Authenticated Receiver
> Chain, and does make the massage shorter).
See my last post on this.

My mail software has been pruning useless headers since the 80s when 
we began to import RFC822 mail.  It has grown tremendously ever since 
and its gotten worst.
The idea of "Who cares?" that RFC5322 meta-header waste is widely 
acceptable, is part of the problem.
RFC5322 Header Pruning SHOULD be a new common practice to be evaluated.

Among others, DKIM-Signature is certainly a prune candidate once 
validation has taken place a the MDA, i.e. transports have ended.
--
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos


_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp