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.
Regards,
Douglas Otis
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html