On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
DKIM is not 'in a state of flux'.
DKIM's restrictions on linking signatures with a header was premised
upon an expectation that visual examination of headers provided a
means for recognition. When the entire email-address is expressed
in UTF-8 (SMTP is in a state of flux), DKIM verifiers may be unable
to handle domain conversions from UTF-8. Will a header display the
UTF-8 version of the email-address while the DKIM verification checks
what might be an ACE label form of the email-address? Will DKIM
require regressive substitutions of headers in an effort to restore a
signature, or will this represent a high failure rate for DKIM signed
messages? Will DKIM require extensive exchanges of private-keys or
zone delegations as the _only_ method of overcoming the linkage
restriction where email-address domains must be within signing
domains? While DKIM may not be in a state of flux, SMTP is. The
premise used to instantiate restrictions on the identity on who's
behalf the signature was added remains flawed and increasingly so.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
