On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Terry Zink <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Joe User <[email protected]> > *** To: [email protected] > Original-To: [email protected] > *** Subject: [BIRDWATCHERS] Hi, I'm Joe from the northeast![...] > DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=yahoo.com; > h=from:date:subject:to:mime-version:message-id:content-type:original-to; > DKIM-Signature: v=2; d=yahoo.com; l=0; > h=from:date:to:mime-version:message-id:content-type:original-to; > *** DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=birdwatchers.org; > h=from:date:to:mime-version:message-id:content-type:original-to; > *** List-Id: "Birdwatchers in the Northeast" <[email protected]> > > [...] > > - This would be an add-on to DMARC and an add-on to DKIM, but not a big > one. In fact, the DKIM-Sign v=2 could be v=1. DMARC would know not to align > a weak DKIM signature (l=0) with DMARC by itself (indeed, we are basically > saying l=0 should not be used for normal DKIM trust relationships). So it’s > no add on to DMARC. > You're either saying this change belongs in DKIM (which then ascribes special meaning to this kind of signature combination, or to "v=2" signatures, or something), or you're leaving DKIM alone and saying that the analysis logic appears in DMARC. What advantage does this have over John's proposal? It actually looks more complicated to me, because it spans the divide between DKIM and DMARC. John's proposal is completely contained within DKIM. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
