ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: An issue with DKIM reporting extensions

2010-10-13 13:49:56

On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:55:25 am Steve Atkins wrote:
On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
or
a special selector (e.g. s=notifications), to identify the different
nature of this mail stream?

No. Never do this.

Selectors are an operational convenience for key rotation and
ease of domain delegation. They have no semantics beyond
being used to query DNS to find the public key.

Sure.  That's the right answer from a standard POV, but if I can extract 
statistically significant information by segregating mail streams by 
selector, 
I'll do it anyway, I don't care what the standard says (no, I haven't done 
this analysis yet, so I don't have an opinion on if one actually could do it 
or not).


Do whatever you like as a receiver, as long as you do it in private -
I expect there will be some interesting, though probably not terribly
useful correlations there.

But don't encourage senders to break DKIM by suggesting
that there are any semantics to selectors. There aren't, and
trying to add any will break things.

Cheers,
  Steve


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html