Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
I was thinking it might make sense to allow the SSP DOMAIN to
define a policy attribute in its SSP record which exposes the
expectation for body truncations.
I agree that this should be a capability, but I disagree
> with extending the policy specification.
The rules of DKIM mean that any information of this type must go
> into the key records. If a verifier finds a valid, trusted DKIM
> signature the policy record would not normally be read.
Even better. My only reason for suggesting SSP was because I didn't want
to further delay DKIM-BASE. But Yes, definitely, I agree with you. The
consideration should be (would be more appropriate) for the key record.
So if the feature is to be supported the only place to put it
> is in the key record as a key signing constraint.
+1.
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html