On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 9:30 AM Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/27/2025 1:34 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
I already explained the problem with your previous attempt, as have others.
No, you haven't.
> It has entirely different semantics from the other two, and not in contrast to them
The DKIM introduction has an eleven bullet-point illustrating the contrast.
Simply citing that that in that document does not provide a rationale -- never-mind a compelling rationale -- for including something about DKIM in the SMTP spec.
Again, the burden for developing a group agreement on inclusion rests with you, not me.
Nope, this is not a court. I can just say you folks are out to lunch and leave it there. But I will humor you.
More than one of has said it should not be included. Please point to the support that you have so far accrued.
Let's start with Ekr's original, reasonable, message:
Then we can look at this very WG's AS document:
We have DKIM right there in the same bullet point with OpenPGP and S/MIME.
Then we can look at the DKIM RFC (tbc: I know you wrote it):
11 bullet points comparing approaches to message signing.
But perhaps most interestingly, let's look at the instructions for setting up email on Shopify:
No mention of OpenPGP or S/MIME there. I knew about this because Shopify sent a friend some warning email about making sure this was set up, and I had to help.
I rest my case in this made up pseudo-legal framework. :)
thanks,
Rob
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
