[ietf-dkim] Re: dkim service

[Jim Fenton]

william(at)elan.net wrote:

>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jim Fenton wrote:
>
>> The people we're trying to help are the ones who won't can't do that 
>> additional setting to make Sender visible.  And I'm not satisfied 
>> with helping 50% of the clients.
>
>
> Lets suppose for a moment that email client change and we have another 
> visible header field that close to 100% can see and that also needs to 
> be protected or lets say we have another header field that some, 
> including signer (but not all) want to be protected.

There are a lot of things that can be done if one assumes an email 
client change, but we have been avoiding requiring that because it is 
expected to greatly increase the time to successful deployment.

> So, unless you have real big problem with being just slightly more 
> verbose,
> please specify by additional tag that for anti-spoofing, you're 
> focusing on "from". If there is support to introduce anti-spoofing 
> protect for another field, it would then be easy and not cause any 
> potential conflicts with existing installed base.

A few of the DKIM authors have been discussing this, and I expect the 
current dependency on Sender to change in -01.  Stay tuned.

-Jim