Dave CROCKER wrote:
Hmmm. It occurs to me that it might help things to have reports from those
who
are using the header. Who is using and how they are using it could help
establish a referential base when a) considering whether the spec is worthy
of
standardization, and b) considering proposed changes to the specification.
I just realized that although I responded to some posts in this thread,
I never offered our own answer to the query.
We have filters which add the header field (unless they reject the
message outright) after evaluating DKIM, DomainKeys, SPF and Sender-ID,
which are all open source. Then we have a feature of our commercial
product which can be told to take
routing/quarantine/filtering/modification actions on the message based
on the results thus relayed.
I also submit these that I found via a popular search engine:
- an open source content checker (i.e. anti-spam/anti-virus/quarantine)
called "amavisd" adds the header field after doing DomainKeys and DKIM
evaluations for use by downstream entities; the author doesn't appear to
be on this list, but he is on other related lists
- a SpamAssassin extension which scores based on the contents of the
Authentication-Results header field with respect to DomainKeys signatures
- KarmaSphere, an experimental open source reputation system, collects
Authentication-Results values and includes them in its evaluations
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html