> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:28 PM > To: IETF-DKIM WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available > > That brings up the strange question of what "supporting DKIM" is. > > I think we could write normative language for what MLM software MUST > NOT do if it wants to pass DKIM-signed messages through unscathed. We > could also write normative language for what MLM software MUST do if it > wants to sign the messages itself (that's pretty obvious.) But it's > all the places in between that get complicated -- particularly when MLM > developers are (in my experience) notoriously slow to add features.
I think your second paragraph gave the definition that answers the first: An MLM "supports DKIM" (or "is DKIM-friendly", to use some earlier language) if it either (a) doesn't do any message modification that would generally invalidate an author signature, or (b) re-signs mail upon re-posting it, or (c) both (a) and (b). _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
