Do Alpine or Thunderbird or whatever else do anything special now when a
message is signed, whether or not the signature(s) pass or fail?
For S/MIME, maybe PGP. But of course neither does anything with message
headers.
Current modules that don't do the kind of enforcement people are
demanding and that isn't exacerbating anything. When they add DKIM
support in some way, I imagine those MUAs will ....
DKIM support in an MUA? Yuck.
It's likely to be a long time before any MUA I use does anything with
DKIM, since I am not a fan of filtering mail while reading it. All my
filtering happens at delivery time, long before the MUA sees it. Since
mail systems tend to have a lot more control over their delivery process
than over the MUAs their users use, I expect I am not the only one who
would be dismayed to have to upgrade every MUA in the world to do
filtering that could have happened during message delivery.
That's why, as I've been trying to explain, if I can't use DKIM to do
reliable whitelisting at delivery time, its utility is vastly decreased.
Or to flip that around, anyone who uses DKIM to whitelist is going to have
to do the multiple header check anyway, so it would be nice to have it
specified as part of DKIM, at least as a SHOULD if not a MUST, rather than
reinvented and glued on ad-hoc everywhere.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html