Re: Discussion about draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header

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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp