On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> I've opened a ticket to arrange that "t=y" suppresses any positive impact >> domain reputation has in the next version of OpenDKIM, as an experiment. >> > > I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. That wouldn't have been an > unreasonable interpretation six years ago when DKIM was new, but this is > the first time someone's suggested that t=y mean something operational > rather than just encouraging better logging and diagnostics. (I discount > the "don't penalize us for bad signatures" theory since as you note people > aren't supposed to do that even without t=y.) > > That's certainly true, but then again actual reputation services based on DKIM hadn't been developed back then. Maybe an applicability statement will be a good thing to do once this has been explored a little more, or it could be included in progression to IS status. -MSK
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
