[ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822
lear at cisco.com
Mon Jul 24 07:52:13 PDT 2006
Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 11:53 -0700, ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> Striving to allow the message to be verified at the MUA increases the
> possible success of DKIM in offering the desired assurance. While there
> may be problems in some cases, many of these cases could be avoidable.
> Signing at the MUA offers less value and will likely see a higher level
> of failure. There are many reasons to caution about signing at the MUA.
I see nothing wrong with this, so long as caveats are explained
(anti-virus checks, etc), and more seriously when it comes to signing.
One example would be a signature that says "this email brought to you by..."
More information about the ietf-dkim