[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] value-added DKIM-ish enhancements )was - Re: Weird i= in client mail)

2013-06-19 13:10:56

On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy 
<superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

      It needs a method of declaring its presence, such as an extra
header field or a special external query, but after that, it's free to
define anything it wants, including a public meaning for i=

ATPS did exactly this.  It may be a poor example in that it has seen 
approximately zero uptake due to lack of demand, but it does demonstrate the 
mechanism Dave's describing here.

Dear Murray,

As people contend with unintended issues caused by DMARC, such as dealing with 
mailing lists, then ATPS may get a second look.  ATPS will not have uptake with 
the requirement for a different kind of DKIM signature.  DMARC could override 
this with a policy assertion that ATPS is used with normal DKIM signatures by 
the domain. 

Douglas Otis
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>