----- Original Message ----- > From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> > To: "IETF DKIM WG" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2011 6:23:06 AM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Franck Martin > > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 2:26 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: IETF DKIM WG > > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) > > > > However what is easy, is to modify the content of the email. We > > could > > add a new tag in the dkim spec like st=, but I'm not sure this is > > feasible with the various current DKIM software today. > > We can't add anything to DKIM without delaying significantly the goal > of advancing it to Draft Standard. On the other hand, you can register > a new tag in your own RFC without interfering with that progress.
Yes I know, this is not what I was asking. For instance, in openDKIM, can I add an st= tag (or any other tag) easily or will that oblige you to modify the code and therefore make a new release of openDKIM? > > > So the best option is to define a new email header and have it > > signed > > by DKIM. > > > > From a sender point of view this is easier to do (vs creating a sub > > domain, remapping mail servers,...) > > You can do that if you think it'll work. The header field registry > also is extensible. > > > From a receiver point of view, are people willing to adapt their > > reputation engine, to take into account this new header? I have no > > idea. > > I think you need some data to show this works and will get uptake. But > if you have that, then getting something like that standardized is > easy. Just don't underestimate the size of that "if". > Yes, anyone can submit something to the IETF queue, but will it take, that's another story. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
