In article <[email protected]> you write: >On Mon 25/Jan/2021 21:07:01 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: >> >> On 1/25/21 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >>> On Sun 24/Jan/2021 19:49:34 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote: >>>> issue #99 needs to be addressed. >>> >>> Won't we put a DKIM-Signature: in the http: header? >>> >> I don't know. That would need to be specified. To me it sounds like a good >> reason to not try to specify http especially if there doesn't seem to be any >> clear desire for it. > >Yes, it needs a spec. It doesn't seem to be overly difficult.
Sheesh. That isn't mission creep, it's mission gallop. If you want a domain identity (even though in this case it provides nothing useful), what's wrong with a client cert? They exist, they work, they have software support everywhere. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
