[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 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 agree that MUA signing is more problematic for a bunch of different > reasons, but this is only a question of degree. The same basic problems exist > at both ends.
I finally figured out what I wanted to say about the question of MUA signing or validating: DKIM needs to support signing and validating by MUAs, when the intervening systems -- and especially the MSA, MDA and Boundary MTAs -- permit. It is important that we document that there are difficulties in many environments. Some do great violence to the message; others do little or none. DKIM need not attempt to provide remedies to those or require that those environments be changed. We might want to document examples that work easily and others that are virtually certain not to work. Again, however, this is education rather than specification. At most, it might provide some guidance, for sites wishing to make MUA signing or validation work better. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
