It appears that Tom Ellengold <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Hi All, > >Bron suggested that I reach out here as there have been questions regarding >how DKIM2 will affect FBL's and >abuse handling. > >Are there any expected changes or expectations around abuse handling as part >of this?
At this point the answer is definitely maybe. We expect DKIM2 to supplant and eventually replace DKIM1, so that will have some effect on DMARC. One issue is what aligned means when there's a chain of signatures with different d=. My inclination is to say that if any of the domains in a valid chain match the From header domain, that's aligned, but we have to work that out. Another is DMARC reporting. I suppose we could just say to report DKIM2 success the same as DKIM1 but I suspect some more flags will be useful. For FBLs, the current draft has a f=feedback flag to ask for feedback, and f=feedhere flag that privacy preserving forwarders can use to ask that reports be sent to them and not farther up the chain. At this point there's no more details about what the feedback is or how you decide if and where to send it, but see draft-brotman-dkim-fbl-06 for a plausible approach. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
