> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dkim-ops] DKIM Testing Feedback Loops > > [...] > > I will add exploratory support for ATPS today. I believe it was the > right thing to do for the future of DKIM.
Excellent; the more implementations, the better. OpenDKIM won't have it for another month or so, so you may have some shakedown feedback before we get started. Unless you're planning to replace ASL, you might want to get it into a draft form should the momentum be in that direction. > I have only one suggestion: > > Iin your IETF way, add a statement that would update RFC 5617 > definition for DKIM=ALL > > from > > all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author > Domain Signature. > > to > > all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author > Domain Signature or Authorized Third Party Signature > > Or mention it a implementation (if it exist) may actually follow the > DKIM=ALL semantics to the letter and only allow the Author Domain to > be the signing party. I don't think that's appropriate. A verifier that only wants to implement ADSP and not ATPS would be confused by that change. There shouldn't be a forward reference in ADSP to an experiment or a further option (should this become standard). _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
