Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 11:53 -0700,
ned+dkim(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Striving to allow the message to be verified at the MUA increases the
possible success of DKIM in offering the desired assurance. While there
may be problems in some cases, many of these cases could be avoidable.
Signing at the MUA offers less value and will likely see a higher level
of failure. There are many reasons to caution about signing at the MUA.
I see nothing wrong with this, so long as caveats are explained
(anti-virus checks, etc), and more seriously when it comes to signing.
One example would be a signature that says "this email brought to you by..."
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html