On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:17 AM Jesse Thompson <z...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> > Is rfc6651 a lost cause? It looks like it defines a reporting mechanism in > control of the signer, as opposed to the attacker. > > > Has anyone (else) implemented it? > > > That's what I want to understand. Or, more specifically, if no one > implemented it, why? And have those blockers changed due to the changed > landscape with dkim replay, etc. > When DKIM was young, a mechanism like the one defined in RFC 6651 was enormously valuable to me when two implementations were trying to debug interoperability problems. It allowed us to see why signatures were failing. Once all the bugs were worked out and things like canonicalization and common MTA mutations were well understood, the need for this sort of thing faded away. Thus, I never heard of any implementations besides the first one. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
