Douglas Otis wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 11:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Striving to allow the message to be verified at the MUA increases the > possible success of DKIM in offering the desired assurance. While there > may be problems in some cases, many of these cases could be avoidable. > Signing at the MUA offers less value and will likely see a higher level > of failure. There are many reasons to caution about signing at the MUA. >
I see nothing wrong with this, so long as caveats are explained (anti-virus checks, etc), and more seriously when it comes to signing. One example would be a signature that says "this email brought to you by..." Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
