Michael Thomas wrote: > I believe that the basic disconnect here is that the protocol "protects" > anything. The running assumption that I've seen the most support for is that > the protocol *informs" other entities of the way the domain behaves, and the > protocol consumer may or may not use that information in conjunction with > other information to "protect" their incoming mail feed.
I like your phrasing quite a lot. I think it describes what DKIM does and does not do quite well. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
