On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:37:50 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
The use of the DKIM l=, z= and x= features provide a means for
recipients to separately evaluate DKIM signatures without reliance on
intermediary assessors. In addition, the A-R header does not capture
the IP address when assessing path registration protocols, which means
that safe recipient reassessment might only be possible in the case of
DKIM or reverse DNS.
[...]
Could we please not re-re-re-rehash these A-R issues on ietf-dkim? They
were already covered on mail-vet-discuss more times than I can count.
The archives of that list are public in case anyone really needs to go
through them all again.
Actually, this discussion is a spin-off of the thread on the usefulness of
the l= tag, which is definitely on topic for this group.
What I think it makes clear that we are in serious need of some document
to provide Best Practice for how mailing list expanders should handle
DKIM, and I think that is something that this WG needs to take on board.
--
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