----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011 6:23:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Franck
Martin
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 2:26 PM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
However what is easy, is to modify the content of the email. We
could
add a new tag in the dkim spec like st=, but I'm not sure this is
feasible with the various current DKIM software today.
We can't add anything to DKIM without delaying significantly the goal
of advancing it to Draft Standard. On the other hand, you can register
a new tag in your own RFC without interfering with that progress.
Yes I know, this is not what I was asking. For instance, in openDKIM, can I add
an st= tag (or any other tag) easily or will that oblige you to modify the code
and therefore make a new release of openDKIM?
So the best option is to define a new email header and have it
signed
by DKIM.
From a sender point of view this is easier to do (vs creating a sub
domain, remapping mail servers,...)
You can do that if you think it'll work. The header field registry
also is extensible.
From a receiver point of view, are people willing to adapt their
reputation engine, to take into account this new header? I have no
idea.
I think you need some data to show this works and will get uptake. But
if you have that, then getting something like that standardized is
easy. Just don't underestimate the size of that "if".
Yes, anyone can submit something to the IETF queue, but will it take, that's
another story.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html