Michael Thomas wrote:
I believe that the basic disconnect here is that the protocol "protects"
anything. The running assumption that I've seen the most support for is that
the protocol *informs" other entities of the way the domain behaves, and the
protocol consumer may or may not use that information in conjunction with
other information to "protect" their incoming mail feed.
I like your phrasing quite a lot. I think it describes what DKIM does and does
not do quite well.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html