-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:28 PM
To: IETF-DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
That brings up the strange question of what "supporting DKIM" is.
I think we could write normative language for what MLM software MUST
NOT do if it wants to pass DKIM-signed messages through unscathed. We
could also write normative language for what MLM software MUST do if it
wants to sign the messages itself (that's pretty obvious.) But it's
all the places in between that get complicated -- particularly when MLM
developers are (in my experience) notoriously slow to add features.
I think your second paragraph gave the definition that answers the first:
An MLM "supports DKIM" (or "is DKIM-friendly", to use some earlier language) if
it either (a) doesn't do any message modification that would generally
invalidate an author signature, or (b) re-signs mail upon re-posting it, or (c)
both (a) and (b).
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html