John R. Levine wrote:
I've opened a ticket to arrange that "t=y" suppresses any positive impact
domain reputation has in the next version of OpenDKIM, as an experiment.
I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. That wouldn't have been an
unreasonable interpretation six years ago when DKIM was new, but this is
the first time someone's suggested that t=y mean something operational
rather than just encouraging better logging and diagnostics. (I discount
the "don't penalize us for bad signatures" theory since as you note people
aren't supposed to do that even without t=y.)
Its not the first time John. No Tolerance for continued failure with
a t=y has long been advocated hence the current text for opening the
door for tracking. The threads and discussions are long and deep on
this matter.
It was actually pulled from SSP.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html