Talk:DomainKeys Identified Mail

message: "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)
replies: text: We don't know what all the differences are yet, since the DKIM spec hasn't been finished.  A partial list can be found at .  I suspect that list has not been updated and may be a few months out of date with the current state of affairs.  The part of the spec that is currently being worked on is the Sender Signing Policy (SSP).  Opinions on SSP range from "throw out that part of DomainKeys" to "radically expand what can express".  I suspect that DKIM will end up with a slightly enhanced version of SSP compared with DK, but that is just a guess.  Wrs1864 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences with DomainKeys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Now a standard; rewrite? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change to the example address 

message: 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)
thread_title:  good point... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717141250/http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft-outlook/archive/2007/07/05/postmarking-helping-the-fight-against-spam.aspx to http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft-outlook/archive/2007/07/05/postmarking-helping-the-fight-against-spam.aspx
*Added  tag to http://dkim-javamail.sourceforge.net
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Reverted - Snori (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of DKIM 

message: * The SPF page is called: "Sender Policy Framework" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework)
* The DKIM page is called: "DomainKeys Identified Mail" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail)
* The DMARC page is called: "DMARC" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC)
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)
thread_title:  Naming: should conform with SPF and DMARC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quite a non intellectual approach to link for patents to Google 

message: 2 muebles corgante 2607:FB91:899:9BA4:AC08:4A44:8ABF:9E6E (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercancías no me llego