On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:55:08 -0700 Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
OTOH, it seems to me that it's been said Ad Nauseum. Where feasible I
agree it's better, but there are operational frictions that will impede
this approach in some cases.
What I believe that we've discovered is that this isn't nearly simple as
some people hoped. Doing as little up front as possible so that you
can get operational experience is almost certainly better than guessing --
especially when the guessing wrong is a likely outcome. In this particular
case, I dooubt there will be harm because receivers will always have an
incentive to make better decisions (and hence the desire to upgrade).
I disagree. What I think we've discovered that there is no additional
complexity for signers or authors. It is, in fact, simpler for signers.
Where the limitation on the sendinding side is imposed is on the
granularity of the identity for reputation assessment. Since that's out of
scope, I don't think we should worry about it to much.
The only place I see added complexity is on the receiving side where there
may be one additional DNS lookup and some small marginal processing
requirements.
Modulo the I= discussion from yesterday that I still need some time to sit
down and think about, I don't think anything of the kind has been shown at
all. At most we need some language to avoid dangers that are easily
avoidable.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html