Michael Thomas wrote:
Not to be too jaded, but does anybody think this will have any practical
1. It shows legitimate due diligence. A real-world encounter suggests an
operational problem and this note attends to it.
2. It dispatches the issue from the near-term IETF agenda, thereby relieving
the working group from a hassle.
I tend to view both of these as practical effects. (And, yeah, I suspect I
know the sort of thing you actually had in mind and no, I don't think this
will deal with it.)
What would actually be better here, IMO, is to find out _how_ this
And my point #2, above, is exactly why I suggest it would *not* be better.
It is not the job of this wg to diagnose misbehaviors by s/w or operators.
That's better done elsewhere, like
dkim-dev <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-dev> or
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to