On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:04:22 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
This to me says you still believe DKIM's ultimate payload is something
other than a validated identifier, in this case a domain name. We're
thus not on the same page.
If instead we do agree that that's its sole intended purpose (and
consensus on the errata RFC was achieved, thus confirming this), then
you also have to agree that DKIM already does that. The MUAs simply
fail to make use of it, and that's the real problem.
But we DON'T agree that. It may have been a commonly held opinion at some
time, but recent contributions to these threads indicate a considerable
opinion otherwise.
The best opinion seems to be Mark's "What you see is what they sent".
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html