Trying to follow this thread... I am unclear as to what problem this (aim=) is trying to solve... or is this only to add a layer of (potentially ignored) definitions?
Regards, Damon On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
