On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Douglas Otis wrote: >> It's not worthless to an implementor or administrator interested in >> figuring out why his/her mail isn't verifying properly. > > And to resolve such issues, knowing which Key Domain is being used is > still important, but nonetheless ignored. If fact, the key domain is > likely needed to resolve issues for organizations that use sub-domains!
And the key domain is included in what the revised ARF stuff reports! Amazing! >> Any developer would love to have as much of the original data as possible >> to reconstruct the failure scenario. > > Your strategy appears to ignore the _least_ easily changed identifier > validated by a DKIM signature. No it doesn't. To reconstruct a validation failure, I need all of the inputs to that algorithm as the verifier saw them. This proposal provides them. It really is as simple as that. > While such a scheme might be seen as Sender friendly if adopted, this > would doom DKIM. Selectors devoid of the publishing domain offers no > value. To suggest otherwise would be in support of a false premise. Indeed. But I haven't done that. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
