Keith Moore wrote: > > That's not sufficient unless signers who (re)transmit messages are clearly > distinguishable from signers who author content. That would be a workable > solution, though I don't think it's desirable to overload addresses in this > way.
The primary deployment scenario for DKIM is to do the signing on the submission server, so the signature doesn't necessarily identify the message's author. I'd say the tag you want has at least three settings: author / submission server / re-sender; and perhaps also smart host / forwarder / list server. Etc. etc. > John R Levine wrote: > > > > Because domains are run by people, some of whom do a much better job of > > managing their mail than others. > > That's a bit like saying that drivers in some states are better than drivers > in other states, so states should discourage bad drivers by blocking off their > borders with states with bad driving reputations. DKIM should be able to operate at a much finer granularity than the IP addresses of an ISP's outgoing relays. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
