According to Richard Clayton <[email protected]>: >A very common arrangement is for the brand to set up a CNAME rather than >sharing key material.
Huh? It needs to share the private key so the ESP can sign the mail. The main benefits of the CNAME is that it's a lot shorter than the full public key and so more likely to work with provisioning crudware that can't handle long text strings, and it's easier for the brand to revoke if they have a falling out with the ESP. >The suggestion that domain A could add a header field on a per-email >basis that says "Domain B can make any changes to this email it wishes" >might be workable. That is, give carte blanche permission rather than >only allowing specific modifications. Nobody thought much of that idea when I proposed it a decade ago. Perhaps times have changed. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/ R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
