Dave Crocker wrote:
You just described a database of one entry, with a very specific
*additional* semantic. This a) requires listing the domain name(s)
to be assigned the semantic, and b) the semantic that goes with
this. This all goes far beyond the DKIM base specification.
You've deleted the key word: "local". We have no local database.
Yes, you do.
At any rate: 1) the issue was whether you have a database, not whether
it was local or global, and 2) you treat cisco.com specially and this
requires listing cisco.com specially. That listing is a database.
The issue was *specifically* whether we were supposed to carry
a *local* database. That's what both Paul and John were saying
that we'd have to do with respect to third party signatures. We
do *not* have any such database, nor do we have any plans to do
so, and yet we still see utility. You're just shifting the argument
and it's distracting and not germane to the original issue.
I've never claimed
that it was -base alone. It's -base in conjunction with -ssp. And
you still haven't refuted my point. Both you and John would do well
to actually get some real-life experience here.
Yeah. John and I do seriously lack real-world experience. Thanks for
repeatedly pointing that out.
Is it really that difficult to go to sourceforge, deploy Murray's
milter, and get some?
And it would be interesting to see your response concerning the
difference you seem to see, between breaking a signature for mailing
list forwarding of individual messages, versus breaking a signature for
messages contained in a mailing list digest.
The two situations aren't even remotely comparable. A mailing list
digest comes From: the domain of the mailing list. A mailing list,
on the other hand, preserves the originating domain's From: and
possibly breaks that signature due to transmogrification.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html