-----Original Message-----
From: dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:dkim-ops-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37 AM
To: dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] DKIM Testing Feedback Loops
[...]
I will add exploratory support for ATPS today. I believe it was the
right thing to do for the future of DKIM.
Excellent; the more implementations, the better. OpenDKIM won't have it for
another month or so, so you may have some shakedown feedback before we get
started.
Unless you're planning to replace ASL, you might want to get it into a draft
form should the momentum be in that direction.
I have only one suggestion:
Iin your IETF way, add a statement that would update RFC 5617
definition for DKIM=ALL
from
all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author
Domain Signature.
to
all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author
Domain Signature or Authorized Third Party Signature
Or mention it a implementation (if it exist) may actually follow the
DKIM=ALL semantics to the letter and only allow the Author Domain to
be the signing party.
I don't think that's appropriate. A verifier that only wants to implement ADSP
and not ATPS would be confused by that change. There shouldn't be a forward
reference in ADSP to an experiment or a further option (should this become
standard).
_______________________________________________
dkim-ops mailing list
dkim-ops(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops