On Wed 30/Aug/2023 14:14:41 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/30/2023 1:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Wed 30/Aug/2023 07:35:08 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:11 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/29/2023 7:46 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 8/29/23 9:02 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Why not re-use the existing DKIM solution, just with a different domain /
set of keys?
Because it does not provide the affirmative information that I am
postulating/guessing the originating platform can supply.
I have to agree. It's compelling to consider that a high-trust domain might
flag something for my extra consideration. This could be done per-message,
rather than per-key, which was Grant's counterproposal; the equivalent is to
generate a selector per message, which appears at least on the surface to
suffer problems of scale.
The affirmative information can be provided by using semantic subdomain
names, whose purpose and meaning has been registered. See the strawman here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/ez0PYqMdCDoR4-sN2toPGObMMFI
Except that there are no semantics to the domain naming components in DKIM,
beyond the ones already defined.
That was defined in the strawman linked above, from last Friday. Please have a
look at it.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
