Dave Crocker wrote:
We might want to document examples that work easily and
others that are virtually certain not to work.
For the MSA case "MAY add sender" won't work if the MUA signed
that there is no Sender. Otherwise I think that RFC 4409 is
no problem for MUAs wishing to sign their mails.
With BURL or BDAT tricks the MUA would know that it can't sign
something that it has never seen or sent. Was that Lemonade ?
Maybe forward your question to this WG wrt the sending side.
I vaguely recall an MMS-SMTP gateway RFC, that could be also
relevant for DKIM, but it's unrelated to signing MUAs.
Again, however, this is education rather than specification.
At most, it might provide some guidance, for sites wishing to
make MUA signing or validation work better.
No "however" or "at most" IMO, education is really important.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html