On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:30 AM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/11/2020 10:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > The question is, what responsibility is being claimed? > .... > > Tagging keys with aim= would allow senders to choose an appropriate > selector > > under different circumstances. > > If signers want to have a standardized means of indicating the > fine-grained semantics behind their signature, they can do that without > modifying DKIM. > > Rather, define and use a header field that specifies DKIM signing > policy. Cover it with the DKIM signature, of course. > > The only interesting part of this task is deciding on a standard set of > policy labels. > > Oh, and then figuring out why and how they are useful to provide... > Indeed; why would I believe what any given domain claims in this tag? If the response to that is that you will trust only what certain domains say here, then you probably already know the equivalent of what's in the tag anyway. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
