On 7/30/2011 6:26 AM, t.petch wrote:
Sadly, I do not see it being used in the mailing lists where an
organisation is sending me directly data I would like to be able to rely on
- which I think fits the applicability well - and instead, I see it
being used on a mailing list such as those in the IETF where I
believe that the costs outweigh the benefits - and I have no choice
about that:-(.
Costs?
1. The only place that DKIM information appears in a message is in a special
header-field.
2. If your system does not process DKIM and you don't display the full header,
you don't even see that it is there; unlike OpenPGP and S/MIME, there is no
evidence of DKIM in the body.
3. The increase in size in message size is felt by the industry to be a minor
"cost", especially given all the other functions that already increase message size.
4. If the extra bytes are such a terrible burden for you, strip the field off.
It does seem odd to complain about a mechanism that (finally) provides a
certifiably valid identifier on messages, in an environment where 90% of the
traffic across the Internet exploits the fact that there hasn't been one...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf