----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Otis" <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
To: <ned+dkim(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
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.
If this is deemed to be desirable (no MUA signing), what mechanism would be
used to control it from happening?
A signed DKIM message with no HOP information?
Basically how would you distinguish an MUA vs. MTA?
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html