> What is ironic about all this DKIM forwarding issue is the same issue > that SPF forwarding had. This was one of the marketing advantages of > DKIM - that it didn't have a forwarding problem. > > Well, it does.
Indeed it does. But it doesn't have the forwarding problem for the (large) class of forwarders that we might rather call "aliases" -- the ones such as computer.org, acm.org, and college alumni aliases. That's a major and common case that breaks SPF, but that DKIM works with. It's also possible -- we'll have to see what happens -- that mailing lists could change their behaviour to take better advantage of DKIM (with the specs that are already published). That's not an option they had with SPF. So I think the fact that mailing lists aren't straightforward with respect to any "sender authentication system" doesn't mean that DKIM hasn't moved us well ahead in this regard. Barry, as participant _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
