Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
Of possible interest to the DKIM community:
To the community, quite possibly. But I don't see much
to do with the DKIM protocol, as currently spec'd. If,
however, someone started using X.509 certs, XKMS or
DNSSEC to support DKIM, then yes, it'd start to be
relevant. Or am I missing something?
Well, between your note and Paul's I'm now sorry I passed the anchor
announcement on, even though I did only say "of possible interest".
It is interesting, nonetheless, that the latter part of your message provides
some perfectly reasonable examples of why the anchor work might be "of
interest" to DKIM folk...
Other possibilities might have to do with what domain names might sign what
messages or even what DKIM signatures might sign existing DKIM signatures, or...
"of possible interest" wasn't meant to be specific but merely to suggest and
area of consideration.
For individuals, not the working group.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to