On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
It's not worthless to an implementor or administrator interested in
figuring out why his/her mail isn't verifying properly.
And to resolve such issues, knowing which Key Domain is being used is
still important, but nonetheless ignored. If fact, the key domain is
likely needed to resolve issues for organizations that use sub-domains!
And the key domain is included in what the revised ARF stuff reports!
Amazing!
Any developer would love to have as much of the original data as possible
to reconstruct the failure scenario.
Your strategy appears to ignore the _least_ easily changed identifier
validated by a DKIM signature.
No it doesn't.
To reconstruct a validation failure, I need all of the inputs to that
algorithm as the verifier saw them. This proposal provides them. It
really is as simple as that.
While such a scheme might be seen as Sender friendly if adopted, this
would doom DKIM. Selectors devoid of the publishing domain offers no
value. To suggest otherwise would be in support of a false premise.
Indeed. But I haven't done that.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html