Indeed they are stubborn, it suits them perfectly, if I may say so :)
I stumbled across this myself a while ago and it didn't make sense to me
either,
except for the fact that they are stubborn.
cipix
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 07:10, Steve Jenkins <stevejenkins_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:51 PM, SM <sm_at_resistor.net> wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > At 13:55 26-01-11, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> >>
> >> I couldn't help but notice your message was signed by both. ;)
> >
> > I see that you noticed that. :-)
> >
> > The message is not DomainKeys signed to get a better delivery rate.
> There
> > are some tests which are run from that server for legacy reasons. It
> will
> > probably be left to run as long as other people find it useful and it is
> not
> > too much work to maintain. If I recall correctly, there are even some
> > unreleased fixes that were applied.
>
> So after testing just now with a Yahoo! Mail account myself, it
> appears that Yahoo! puts their little "Signed by DomainKeys" icon on
> an incoming message that is signed with DomainKeys, but doesn't put
> the icon there (or do anything special in the user interface) if it's
> only signed with DKIM.
>
> Again, I have zero data on deliverability comparison, but the fact
> that Yahoo! would display an icon (whose intent is clearly to increase
> the recipient's trust of a message) only with DK and not with DKIM is
> mind-boggling! Are they just being stubborn about their intellectual
> property rights around DomainKeys vs. DKIM?
>
> SteveJ
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 27 2011 - 08:16:48 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thu Jan 27 2011 - 14:50:01 PST