> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Franck Martin > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:21 AM > To: John Levine > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Levine" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, 4 April, 2011 4:09:16 PM > > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) > > >Another way is to have a dkim tag that specify the header that > > >indicates the stream classification > > > > >Many ways to kill the same bird. > > > > If there is a reason why people aren't able to use a d= domain per > > stream, I wish someone would explain in simple terms that even a > > dimwit like me can understand. > > > > The only arguments I'm aware of is that hostile or incompetent DNS > > managers refuse to install key records, which isn't a very good > reason > > to add cruft to a standard and "I want to do it some other way" which > > is even worse. > > > you can lead a horse to water.... > > I'm curious of the reasons too, I see some data points, but cannot > conclude any statistics... > > May be from the people who do statistics on DKIM, do you see a fair > percentage of DKIM signed sub-domains?
We DKIM sign separately for subdomains. That is, the d= is the subdomain. We do this because they are different mailstreams. WE don't do anything special or significant with i=. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
