> Now on the other hand, if an administrative domain wanted to go to the
> trouble to authenticate down to the user level, we didn't want to prevent
> that, either. The primary audience for DKIM includes regulated industries,
> after all.
Seems to me that works fine as is. If a stock broker wa
I want to add in a bit here as well.
In doing the crypto/security parts of DKIM, we had two goals in tension with
each other. One was to provide accountability for a message for all the obvious
good reasons.
But in the other direction, we didn't want DKIM to accidentally turn email into
an alw
On Jun 18, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> It needs a method of declaring its presence, such as an extra
> header field or a special external query, but after that, it's free to
> define anything it wants, including a public meaning for i=
>
> ATPS did exactly this. It m
