ned+dkim(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
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 agree that MUA signing is more problematic for a bunch of different
reasons, but this is only a question of degree. The same basic problems exist
at both ends.
I finally figured out what I wanted to say about the question of MUA signing or
validating:
DKIM needs to support signing and validating by MUAs, when the intervening
systems -- and especially the MSA, MDA and Boundary MTAs -- permit.
It is important that we document that there are difficulties in many
environments. Some do great violence to the message; others do little or none.
DKIM need not attempt to provide remedies to those or require that those
environments be changed.
We might want to document examples that work easily and others that are
virtually certain not to work. Again, however, this is education rather than
specification. At most, it might provide some guidance, for sites wishing to
make MUA signing or validation work better.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html