John R. Levine wrote:
Since there's no such thing as a "3rd party signing policy" in DKIM or
ADSP, I don't understand why we're even discussing this.
John,
Because the lack of one has created other conflicts and
mis-interpretations.
Cited another way:
1) dkim=all
is being read as a 3rd party signing allowance when as you say,
offers no 3rd party signing policy.
2) It has created design pressure to create I-D proposals
to hack the 5322.From or add new Headers to circumvent #1
3) As you often state, in the spirit of what counts most in the
IETF, "Running Code" and open source DKIM API (which mean
other MTA must be using it) naturally follows #1
4) Resigners (New and Legacy) are not listening to ADSP,
so #1 doesn't apply, thus forcing #2 and #3.
Just providing input to help codify the engineering.
Thanks
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html