On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:04:22 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy <m...@cloudmark.com> wrote:
> This to me says you still believe DKIM's ultimate payload is something > other than a validated identifier, in this case a domain name. We're > thus not on the same page. > > If instead we do agree that that's its sole intended purpose (and > consensus on the errata RFC was achieved, thus confirming this), then > you also have to agree that DKIM already does that. The MUAs simply > fail to make use of it, and that's the real problem. But we DON'T agree that. It may have been a commonly held opinion at some time, but recent contributions to these threads indicate a considerable opinion otherwise. The best opinion seems to be Mark's "What you see is what they sent". -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: ...@clerew.man.ac.uk snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
