On 06/15/2012 08:44 PM, F. Mendez wrote:
Because a lot of mail server this days still use and checks for
domainkeys and not only dkim. In fact, even BIG isp checks for both.
That's a pretty broad claim. I'd like to see documentation supporting this.
On the inbound side, it might make sense to check for either. That's
different from checking for both though.
On the outbound side, it makes little sense to sign messages with both.
BL is that inbound and outbound should be addressed separately.
Yahoo might be last lone DK holdout (given they developed it), so
outbound messages going to yahoo should perhaps be signed with DK, and
all others signed with DKIM. I would not recommend this though. I
believe that yahoo will eventually need to handle DKIM so long as the
majority are using it.
We need to have and offer 100% all possible checks for domain
certification email traffic.
I respectfully disagree.
See http://email-museum.com/2008/03/12/dkim-vs-domainkeys-confusion/ for
instance. This was written 4 years ago. Eventually DKIM is expected to
supersede DK, and DK will be obsolete. If DK isn't deprecated already,
it should be (imo).
At the rate we're going, by the time we would implement DK successfully,
I expect it will be all but obsolete. If someone comes up with a working
DK check for incoming messages on QMT, I'm more than happy to include
it. I don't see it as a high priority though.
For outbound messages, I see no need for DK signing providing that DKIM
is implemented. If DK is desired, I think it should be only for certain
destinations, such as yahoo. Again, this is a very low priority in my
mind, as it's a problem which I expect will solve itself with time.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
