[ietf-dkim] Re: Purpose and sequence for DKIM specification and deployment

[Frank Ellermann]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
 
> Lets say that I want to reject any message from
> *@verisign.com if the policy record at verisign.com
> denies responsibility for any message that does not
> have a valid signature.

Yes, that makes sense, and it's more than what I read
in Doug's articles, "simplify abuse reports".  As a
KISS extremist I still prefer SPF because it's simpler,
cleaner, and cheaper _as far as SMTP is concerned_ ...

...but DKIM works for _any_ message/rfc822, unlike SPF
it's not limited / bound to SMTP.  It could work with
NetNews, within multipart/digest, 251-forwarding, etc. 

If it doesn't work with some ugly mailing lists that's
a _feature_ and no bug.
                        Bye, Frank