[ietf-dkim] Can vendor's really say they have DKIM support yet?

[Dave Crocker]

or the response. So just implementing
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/specs/draft-allman-dkim-base-00-10dc.txt
> without SSP is considered a valid DKIM implementation?



 > Thanks for the response. So just implementing
 > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/specs/draft-allman-dkim-base-00-10dc.txt
 > without SSP is considered a valid DKIM implementation?

As I recall, people have had some debate about this exact point.

I believe, quite strongly, that implementing the core signature mechanism 
definitely qualifies as implementing DKIM.

This does not mean that SSP -- or any other bit of additional DKIM technology 
that gets developed -- is unimportant, ill-advised, or any such negative. 
(However I believe there is general agreement that the core is more stable than 
ssp, where 'stable' means that changes to the respective specs are likely to 
entail a smaller percentage of code, data, or operations changes.)

Anyhow, my own view is that it merely that the signature mechanism, itself, is 
sufficiently useful to warrant being called DKIM.

But, of course, that's merely my own view.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>