Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: HLS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of hector >> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:53 AM >> To: Murray S. Kucherawy >> Cc: Michael Thomas; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Is anyone using ADSP? - bit more data from the >> receiving side >> >> If this is true today, then your conversation was probable high-end >> and not actually about what is being done. > > That's not correct. It was one of their lead engineers. > > To avoid the risk of spreading hearsay, I'm not going to comment on this > further.
Good idea. But you can easily attempt to repeat what I observed to prove whether or not they are discarding forged DKIM signatures. There was no bounce, so you can't call a SMTP reject. Then on the 2nd test take the same message and remove the DKIM-SIGNATURE and see what happens. I think this is besides the point. The real issue is given the state of the system now, RFC 5617 exist, are intermediaries exempt from supporting it knowing full well that it will create interoperability issues? That is not a hard question to answer. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
