[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] broken signatures, was Curious

2020-07-21 15:48:43

While I mostly agree, we should not lose sight of the fact that
there still people using the Internet in less-developed
countries, isolated locations, over intermittent connections,
etc., where bandwidth tends to be scarce and expensive
Whatever they are using it for, it probably isn't dominated by
high resolution video and, assuming we care about them, saying
"well, it doesn't make a lot of difference to those who have
essentially unlimited bandwidth and who are streaming lots of
video, so no one and nothing else else counts" seems a
unfortunate to me.

In addition, if a possibly-legitimate, possibly-phishing,
message comes along, I'd really like to see us (and our MUAs)
encourage users to look at headers, understand what can be
trusted and what can't, and so on.  Perhaps the educational
effort that would require is hopeless under the best of
circumstances, but it is certainly impossible if we facilitate
and encourage an ever-rising collection of noise header fields.


--On Tuesday, 21 July, 2020 16:19 -0400 John Levine
<johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:

In article
g> you write:
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.   

The amount of bandwidth used by e-mail is a rounding error of
the Internet's total, which is mostly video these dayts, and
the amount used by broken headers is a rounding error on that
rounding error.

Look at the headers of the mail in your inbox, particularly
mail from large providers, and you'll find megabytes of
headers that nobody is ever likely to look at or use.  This
battle was over decades ago.


ietf-smtp mailing list

ietf-smtp mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>