[likpok]

https://dnssec-name-and-shame.com/

This shows the top 25 websites and that none of them have DNSSEC.

As for whether people will in the future, it’s impossible to say for sure. But chrome doesn’t support dnssec, which shows how seriously google takes it.

[jamesaepp]

Thanks for the link, that's quite interesting. While web browsers can implement their own DNS resolver, that's completely irrelevant when we're talking about an MTA. The server(s) the MTA(s) are running on have their own underlying resolvers which can be DNSSEC-compatible, or better yet, if you're using a public resolver like quad9, they validate the DNSSEC for you.

Edit: Not that I'm saying you should trust quad9 full-stop, but it is a nice feature. Anyone could run their own private resolver but most choose not to because of the very same privacy concerns we're talking about in these headers, namely - making your traffic easier to profile.

[tptacek]

It doesn't matter that your MTA could, in theory, do fully recursive signature-validating resolutions, because none of the domains you'll be looking at are signed.

[jamesaepp]

Yes, I'm satisfied with the evidence presented that the "major" vendors aren't signing their zones, but I do think we're far off-topic at this point as to whether or not the client IP address has value in the message headers.

Thanks for the discussion!