Talk:DomainKeys

Computing Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Old cleanup info[edit]

I removed the reference to Microsoft in the patents section. As someone who was involved in the negotiations over the patent it is not accurate to describe the position in the terms used and certainly not a NPOV. The specific issue the lawyers could not agree on involved a highly complex legal argument over whether a party making use of a sublicense term could be bound by it to provide a reciprocal license. This is a question that nobody really knows the answer to and is likely to ultimately require legislation to clarify the situation.

User:Markd-wikipedia[edit]

This user recently made two edits, once concerning the patent status of DomainKeys, and the other concerning a Wikilink. The wikilink change was an egregrious error, and I have reverted that. However, having this page as the only two pages this user has ever edited, it also casts serious doubt on this authors credibilty for the patent status. I will do some research and see if it's been resolved, but for now, both edits have been reverted. Sorry! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 18:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the edit was made by the patent inventor, he first corrected his name and then incorrectly assumed that the link should point to his user page. Don't expect people to read policies... The patent has not yet been announced as issued by the USPTO but that just means that they are slow. I would leave the status as it is until the USPTO database catches up. --Gorgonzilla 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credit[edit]

Mark Delany has suggested in private mail that all contributors should be credited, not just some of the more well-known ones. I agree that there is a fairness and NPOV point here. If there's another way to note that DK was the result of an industry wide consortium, I'm happy to hear it. RussNelson 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed on the DKIM mailing list, the WP:LEAD section is not the best place to add complete credits plus history. You could copy the acknowledgements, actually I don't see why. Mark, Eric, and Jim as the draft editors are fine, maybe add Dave as maintainer of the DKIM homepage, ready. Omniplex 11:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead section is not the best place for naming contributors (pointer to DKIM mailing list for us clueless Wikipedians -- [1]). We should list any contributors who are notable for other reasons than DomainKeys (particularly if we do or should have a Wikipedia article on them), but I don't think it would be very useful for the article list all of them. Ultimately, the article is for the benefit of the reader, and credit for the designers of DomainKeys takes second priority. — Matt Crypto 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another pointer to the complete "thread" of four articles ;-) Omniplex 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out again that I want to make the point that DK is already the result of industry-wide contributions. Credit? I don't care about credit. I just don't want people to think that DK was created solely by Yahoo and is thus an ignorable sole-vendor "standard". Lots of people contributed to it; there are at least four DK implementations that I know of. Any suggestions on how to make that point? Any reason why that point shouldn't be made in the introductory section? RussNelson 22:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD appears to be fine now, it doesn't mention Yahoo!, and it notes the new IETF DKIM WG. ~~The detail about IIM / Jim / Cisco could IMO be moved to Development.~~ I've tried to simplify the Overview, comparing DomainKeys with SPF was pointless, and as far as it makes sense it is covered by E-mail authentication. Omniplex 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DK vs DKIM[edit]

After reading [2] I came to Wikipedia to compare/contrast DK to DKIM. I find just one page and no clear explanation. Puzzling... --203.167.249.253 04:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info on differences here: differences between DomainKeys (DK) and DKIM. RussNelson 06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is almost exclusively about DKIM. We should move this article to DKIM and then make Domain Keys and Identified Internet Mail pointers to the DKIM article. If the term Domain Keys is used in IETF circles at this point it refers to the use of the DKIM approach applied to other protocols --Gorgonzilla 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that DK and DKIM are different signing systems because DKIM does not intend backwards compatibility. Also, all the existing implementations are DK, not DKIM. Thus, if you want to sign your email now, you should use DK, not DKIM.

disadvantage: content modification[edit]

"if the message is significantly modified en route ... then the signature may no longer be valid" This makes it sound like a little modification is harmless as long as it is not "significant." Can someone make this sentence more clear? Diletante 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"russ nelson of qmail"[edit]

i previously removed 'of qmail', since it implies authorship, a la the very next person listed, 'eric allman of sendmail'. Russ himself has added it back. Hi russ, we've communicated in email a handful of times over the years; i'm listed as an informal 'linter' of the qmail.org page. but i think it's inappropriate to say "russ nelson of qmail". as your edit summary said, you're webmaster of qmail.org. indeed. so, 'russ nelson of qmail.org' would be accurate. i think the only person who could legitimately say "of qmail" is "djb".Anastrophe 06:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's split some more hairs. God knows that the world has too many intact hairs which needs to be halved. The point is to let people know that DomainKeys was inspired by early code written by Mark Delany (of Yahoo), but that the standard was a collaborative effort across the industry. Not that DomainKeys has any future since Cisco got involved in killing it. RussNelson 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's interesting, but not responsive to the matter at hand. you are "russ nelson". you are not "russ nelson of qmail". common vernacular doesn't support the statement, nor does qmail = qmail.org. Anastrophe 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any question about me being strongly associated with qmail? It would be wrong to say "russ nelson of postfix" or "russ nelson of exim". It would be equally incorrect to simply say "russ nelson". I wasn't participating in the DomainKeys design as a J. Random, I was participating on behalf of all qmail users. RussNelson 03:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a compromise solution would be something along the lines of "DomainKeys was designed by Mark Delany of Yahoo. Others provided comments and wrote prototype implementations, including a qmail patch by Russ Nelson, sendmail milter by Eric Allman, John R. Levine of the ASRG contributed to the ietf draft of the protocol(or whatever his actual contribution was, i don't know), among many others". or perhaps something as simple as "Russ Nelson of the qmail community". it requires a qualifier of one sort or another. ultimately, each should be cited, if the WL'ed articles don't have some citation of the involvement in them. Anastrophe 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patents and licensing[edit]

An edit from 2006-01-12 adds some unreferenced statements about the standard being under a dual license scheme, including GPL 2.0. It does not make it clear whether it is talking about a patent license or a copyright license, and suggests that the "traditional corporate oriented" license is the one friendly to free software implementations, and the GPL 2.0 is not. This seems to have gone unchallenged for 2 years, but can it be confirmed or clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.221.158 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DomainKey awareness in software clients?[edit]

In the article it is stated that "DomainKey awareness" is programmed into some e-mail software. Can I have a reference? (is there a client software that implements some kind of domainkey awareness?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.29.87 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who made it/owns it?[edit]

Who owns the company who made this system, even better, what about the history? 98.226.32.129 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]