On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
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.)
That's certainly true, but then again actual reputation services based on
DKIM hadn't been developed back then. Maybe an applicability statement
will be a good thing to do once this has been explored a little more, or it
could be included in progression to IS status.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html