-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <[email protected] il.com>, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> writes
> The proposed charter alludes to extending or modifying DKIM, but > I'm getting the impression now that we're more likely in the space > of doing something that looks a lot like DKIM and probably builds > upon it, but is ultimately distinct from it. I'm happy to be > corrected, but if that's the case, that is what the group behind the existing IETF draft setting out the issues with DKIM intended ... ... we were persuaded that it would be appropriate to discuss forming a working group on this "DKIM1" list, but we were specifically not proposing a DKIMbis > then it seems to me to be very > likely that extending or modifying DKIM itself will end up being > out of scope. as I pointed out yesterday there are a number of the things we wish to achieve (such as capping crypto operations, avoiding backscatter and allowing intermediaries (such as mailing lists and ESPs) to be able to better handle delivery issues (DSNs pass them by unless they mangle headers and that creates other issues). So if the charter mentions these then a DKIMbis will most likely not be suitable - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBZ36M6WHfC/FfW545EQI4gACgxybF8sS5MMFdgA3GGw/sahZJnPkAoPv7 lu/EDNOUdKzHahrgA1vjZFga =gtXx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
