Dave Crocker wrote: > We might want to document examples that work easily and > others that are virtually certain not to work.
For the MSA case "MAY add sender" won't work if the MUA signed that there is no Sender. Otherwise I think that RFC 4409 is no problem for MUAs wishing to sign their mails. With BURL or BDAT tricks the MUA would know that it can't sign something that it has never seen or sent. Was that Lemonade ? Maybe forward your question to this WG wrt the sending side. I vaguely recall an MMS-SMTP gateway RFC, that could be also relevant for DKIM, but it's unrelated to signing MUAs. > Again, however, this is education rather than specification. > At most, it might provide some guidance, for sites wishing to > make MUA signing or validation work better. No "however" or "at most" IMO, education is really important. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html