On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Third we need to promote the idea that you should not look for the
existence or even the validity of a DKIM header as being as
important as the domain that is claiming responsibility. If you
can't correlate the domain to some form of additional information
you should ignore the record entirely.
It is hard to understand what is meant by this suggestion. One might
assume that a DKIM signature makes such a claim on its own. Of
course this claim has limitations. Are you suggesting that there
also be a means to associate the DKIM header with that of the SMTP
client?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
