On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:16 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > I have never understood all of the indirection involved in defining > stuff for A-R but I'm hoping Murray can help out. >
What I think you're referring to is a distinction between the way we seem to want to use A-R now versus how it was originally intended. The original intent back in RFC 5451 was to relay only those details that an MUA might care about, such as the DKIM result (so you can display something representing a "pass" or "fail" on a message) and maybe the domain name found in a passing signature (an early shot at caring about alignment when rendering a message). The community seems to have shifted toward that being too strict and instead wanting to use it as a transport mechanism for any evaluation detail about the message that might be interesting to the MUA or any other downstream agent once it reaches its final ADMD. RFC 8601, for instance, registered "header.a" and "header.s", DKIM properties that are almost certainly of no interest to MUAs. So that ship has sailed, meaning yes, we could register these too if they're going to be useful to downstream agents. Though for that matter, you could just start using them even without registering them to see if it would be helpful, because 8601 allows for local conventions (the tried-and-true "ignore what you don't know" thing that DKIM introduced). -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
