On 4/20/11 1:25 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:36,<Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com> wrote:
Indeed lack of support for 3rd party signers was where I gave up any
interest at all in adsp
As I remember it, there was (or appeared to be) consensus to get ADSP out
there for testing by the entities it might work for, AND simultaneously work
on something for the 3rd party scenarios.
What ever happened to that work? I know there were a couple of drafts, and
Murray added support for one to OpenDKIM...if the 3rd party stuff is really
that important, why isn't anyone using it?
There is still a need for this type of work to improve upon DKIM
acceptance when signatures are damaged for various "innocent" reasons.
It seems appropriate to first determine the output of DANE and how IPv6
acceptance might be handled. IMHO, IPv6 acceptance needs practical SMTP
sender validation methods. Once in place, providing a policy layer upon
what has been embraced as a practical acceptance mechanism for SMTP
senders could easily be extended to include third-party issues with
DKIM. For example, this policy layer may be needed to deal with variant
IDN bundles.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html