Thanks for looking into the I-D and your comments.
Am 19.01.22 um 19:52 schrieb Alessandro Vesely:
I'd be curious about some details of that I-D.
For one, why do all the exemplified DKIM signatures sign the
Content-Type? It is not among the recommended fields of Section 5.4.1
of RFC6376, unless using l=.
This is indeed wrong. There is no specific reason for it, i've just
copied a bad example. Will be fixed with the next revision.
It is not clear how to obtain the double DKIM signature. Since the
examples show no selectors, it is unclear if super-saas-mailer
publishes various keys, one for each authorized sender.
Will be fixed also with the next revision.
The practice to redact information could be mentioned.
Could you give me a little more detail on what you expect here?
Do you mean the general existing practice to redact information?
Why shouldn't messages automatically filtered to the Junk folder be
reported? Isn't it interesting?
Good point, the information about automatic filtering is of course
interesting as well.
The more i think about it, the more i think that this decision should be
made by the mailbox provider and not by the I-D.
Best,
Jan-Philipp
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp