On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:17:01 -0000, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Another obvious case which should be explicitly mentioned in the
'DKIM-signing-complete' explanation is SenderID spf2.0/pra: Even
if we don't care about PRA, a PRA == 2822-From is a normal case.
A domain claiming to be 'DKIM-signing-complete' has to be sure that
there's some DKIM-signing agent on _all_ routes before one of their
spf2.0/pra PASS or NEUTRAL IPs. Otherwise they screwed up, causing
harm for mails "from" their domain.
I think that last is a fair point. But I'm still not convinced that
it's up to the DKIM WG (now) to figure out all details of all such
gatewaying cases, which is where we'd be heading if we start on that
road.
I think it is up to the DKIM WG to try to spot all the things that are
likely to break when DKIM starts to be implemented, and to do what it can
in its drafts to forestall them.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html