[mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM signatures

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Wed Mar 24 13:45:35 PDT 2010

On 03/24/2010 01:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike at mtcc.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:06 PM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: mail-vet-discuss at mipassoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
>> signatures
>> I guess the first order questions I have are, who needs this and why?
> I think the "why" is spelled out in the draft, but the "who" is partly my own work (an open source DKIM project) and is partly an offshoot from a larger issue that will probably need its own working group; however, this piece is useful before that one gets finished (which could take quite a while).
> (In fact, oddly enough, this was originally your idea from way back when, Mike!)

Yeah, it seemed vaguely familiar. The reason I ask is because any IETF effort is almost
by definition a big undertaking, so having a pressing and compelling need and a largish
constituency are usually table stakes. I guess I wonder who that constituency is here, and
whether it's really large enough to get over the ietf energy barrier.

I just read through the draft and I still don't see the "why" that I'm curious about.
I understand the problem itself, but the why I'm asking about is more of "why is
this an actual problem faced by implementations". Ie, is this something that causing
trouble out in the field? Part of this is my own ignorance about how people are actually
using auth-res, I admit.


More information about the mail-vet-discuss mailing list