Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: HLS [mailto:sant9442(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: Michael Thomas; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the
receiving side
If this is true today, then your conversation was probable high-end
and not actually about what is being done.
That's not correct. It was one of their lead engineers.
To avoid the risk of spreading hearsay, I'm not going to comment on this
further.
Good idea.
But you can easily attempt to repeat what I observed to prove whether
or not they are discarding forged DKIM signatures. There was no
bounce, so you can't call a SMTP reject. Then on the 2nd test take
the same message and remove the DKIM-SIGNATURE and see what happens.
I think this is besides the point.
The real issue is given the state of the system now, RFC 5617 exist,
are intermediaries exempt from supporting it knowing full well that it
will create interoperability issues?
That is not a hard question to answer.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html