On 4/20/11 1:25 PM, J.D. Falk wrote: > On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:36,<bill.ox...@cox.com> wrote: >> Indeed lack of support for 3rd party signers was where I gave up any >> interest at all in adsp > As I remember it, there was (or appeared to be) consensus to get ADSP out > there for testing by the entities it might work for, AND simultaneously work > on something for the 3rd party scenarios. > > What ever happened to that work? I know there were a couple of drafts, and > Murray added support for one to OpenDKIM...if the 3rd party stuff is really > that important, why isn't anyone using it? There is still a need for this type of work to improve upon DKIM acceptance when signatures are damaged for various "innocent" reasons. It seems appropriate to first determine the output of DANE and how IPv6 acceptance might be handled. IMHO, IPv6 acceptance needs practical SMTP sender validation methods. Once in place, providing a policy layer upon what has been embraced as a practical acceptance mechanism for SMTP senders could easily be extended to include third-party issues with DKIM. For example, this policy layer may be needed to deal with variant IDN bundles.
-Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
