> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:26 PM > To: Steve Atkins > Cc: ietf-dkim WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Another take on "all email from us is dkim > signed" > > Steve Atkins wrote: > > If there were another field in the DKIM-Signature header, or an > > entirely separate email header covered by the DKIM signature, that > > stated "all email sent using this domain in the From field will be > > DKIM signed" then any receiving MTA or MTA cluster could keep track of > > that state (probably using their existing reputation tracking system > > in the case of large receivers, and using a fairly trivial extension > > to their DKIM plugins in the case of smaller ones). > > If nothing else, this would make revocation sort of... bizarre > and unpredictable. The implication is that I'd have to send $you > mail (for $you == 'universe') to get you to nuke my record in your > database. Of course every good protocol becomes a control protocol > for others, but still this seems a little whacked even by that > standard :) > > Mike
Well, I suppose we could always include a TTL in the tag <G>. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
