Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> The working group was bamboozled into the false dilemma >> that DKIM had to produce a singular "output". It has all >> gone down hill from there. Things that use heuristics like >> spam filters thrive with more information, and suffer with >> less. So we've destroyed information in the name of aesthetics >> while the main consumers of the output thrive on the messy >> details. > > My recollection was that we decided DKIM has to produce at least one specific > output, and that the spec needed to identify what that one particular item > was. We never precluded it from making other information available. > > OpenDKIM makes the entire signature and result available to the caller, so it > can use whatever it wants. And that doesn't make it non-compliant.
Read: All outputs are equal, but some outputs are more equal than others. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
