This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
"DKIM is very similar in most respects to DomainKeys' operation."
So where does it differ? Please could we have a section on this. Sparky132 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
DKIM issued as an IETF standard today. Rather than refer readers to the DomainKeys specification, which is now obsolete and historical, the operational details should probably be moved or copied to this page since this is going to be the primary resource going forward. msk 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the example e-mail address in the header to use a domain reserved for examples/documentation by RFC2606 as this is commonly considered a best-practice. Thanks. -- Kameron ( talk) 01:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yahoo appears to do only DomainKeys and not full DKIM (DomainKey-Signature: header v/s DKIM-Signature: header). So, this statement:
"Since 2004, Yahoo! has signed all of its outgoing e-mail with DomainKeys and is verifying all incoming mail. As of 2005, Yahoo reported that the number of DomainKeys-verified e-mail messages they receive exceeds 300 million per day."
while correct, does not actually belong to this article and causes confusion.
The above raises a good point... what I'd like to see in this article is perhaps a list of which mail servers that check against DKIM (and not DomainKeys) - This article: http://www.ferris.com/2008/03/12/dkim-vs-domainkeys-confusion/ suggests that Yahoo! does not even check DKIM signatures, only DomainKeys signatures - however it is dated 2008 - is this still the case? It would be nice if the article could clarify that so people can get a clue on exactly what to use on their mail servers...
98.212.147.175 ( talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
On 1 May 2009 at 21:49, User:Davecrocker added text adding Dave Crocker of Brandenburg InterNetworking to a list of contributors to the DomainKeys specification. Presuming, of course, that the cited Dave Crocker and User:Davecrocker are the same person, wouldn't that be a WP:NPOV issue? Also, does this belong in the DomainKeys article? -- Flashcube ( talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This is Dave Crocker responding to the concern. Yes, I'm the one cited and the one who modified the page. The previous text about the relevant bit of history was factually incorrect. Before modifying the Wikipedia entry based on my often-poor memory, I contacted Mark Delany, at Yahoo, who invented DomainKeys and recruited a few of us to help with some revisions. The concern about neutral point of view is, of course, always reasonable. This is why I confirmed the information before adding it to the entry.
Davecrocker ( talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Rather than WP:NPOV, I should probably have referred to WP:COI above as that is where the concerns about citing oneself are raised. While I appreciate the transparency and attention to accuracy here, there is still the issue of verifiability, which is not addressed by the conversation with Mark Delany but might be by citing an early revision of the DomainKeys draft. It still seems to me that the history of DomainKeys belongs in that article and not this one. -- Flashcube ( talk) 06:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to explain what parts of the message this mechanism signs and therefore what forgery it protects against. A cursory scan did not tell me whether this only signs the From:, or maybe also To:, Subject:, the content of the message, and so on. Just adding a signature to the whole thing doesn't really add anything, so knowing what it does is vital. This because to my dismay I discovered that some people, even people who habitually sign their email (gpg in that case) didn't understand the notion that a bad signature invalidates the entire email even when the content is plainly visible and not encrypted. What, in the DKIM case, does a signature provide to the end-user, and how is he supposed to deal with failed signatures? 213.93.230.146 ( talk) 09:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DomainKeys Identified Mail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dkim-javamail.sourceforge.netWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The current section on Weaknesses seems to focus on what I would describe as 'technical' weaknesses.
Could some other aspects be called weaknesses?
Or are those things not the 'responsibility' of any "email authentication method designed to detect email spoofing"?
—DIV ( 120.17.109.66 ( talk) 07:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC))
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I'm not going to revert this change because of my obvious conflict of interest, but the recent addition that "It was created by noted cryptography pioneer Jon Callas" is not accurate. Jon was an important member of the team that shaped DKIM and one of the authors/editors of the original DKIM specification, but (and I think he would agree) saying that he created DKIM is overstating things. The text in the Development section at the end of the article more accurately describes what actually happened.
-- Jimfenton ( talk) 04:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
We should pick one "standard" and stick with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.91.199 ( talk) 11:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
instead of direct linking to the USPTO.gov. Probably a Google fanboi acting that has sexual pleasure getting ripped off of privacy or wants to inform Google that his company or client is acute interested in that very patent at that very moment?
Brad Bormer
-07:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 2001:9E8:8A42:E800:A16:755E:A54B:B148 ( talk) 07:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
2 muebles corgante 2607:FB91:899:9BA4:AC08:4A44:8ABF:9E6E ( talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)