On 4/11/08 12:11 PM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> scribbled:
Powers, Jot wrote:
We're moving to support DKIM and DK. Our mail appliance vendor didn't
support dual signing until recently, and given that our published agreements
we need to be able to do both.
Jot,
Within the DKIM community, I suspect there wasn't a question about Paypal's
intent.
I think the issue is that the larger IT community makes excessive distinction
between DomainKeys vs. DKIM and feels that not (yet) supporting the latter is
some sort of strategic statement.
I took Murray's query as having more to do with finding a way to educate these
folk that the difference is incremental rather than strategic.
Ok. Although, clearly I'm not the communication person, the group would like
assistance getting to those people, let me know.
I read the following:
I wonder if it would be prudent to (somehow) make a statement clarifying
that the experiment therein described was begun before RFC4871 was issued,
and thus before DKIM enjoyed any kind of real deployment. Or something
like that. Ideally that would come from PayPal but I don't know that we
have any direct participation from them here.
...and figured I would point out that:
1) At least one person here pays attention
2) In my own small way it was making a public statement (since this is in
email on a public mailing list) that could be pointed to.
If, as usual, I hae completely mis-interpreted the email chain, feel free
to *plonk* my message.
-Jot
--
Jot Powers <jpowers(_at_)paypal(_dot_)com>
Phone: 480-862-7234 Cell: 480-221-1157
Skype: jotebay
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html