On July 14, 2005 at 23:13, domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com wrote:
o Do we need an aspirational like c=simple?
I personally do not object to it, but I think that it is too simple
(no pun intended). Unfolding should at least still be done to
maintain the semantics of RFC-2822. If the powers-that-be believe
that such semantics are worth deviating from, it should be explicitly
stated.
o Do we believe that email signing will trend us in that direction?
I can see how mail signatures may influence design and implementations
of mail software, but what the impact will be is hard to predict
accurately.
I think there is a natural trend to minimize modification since
modern system do not require such things. Common modifications (like
whitespace padding) are due to legacy systems that are dieing out.
Things like address re-write rules by MTAs may not be easily
eliminated. Some modification may be essential, so it may be
impossible to complete eliminate data modification.
o Do we believe that that aspirational needs to be in the base to have a goo
d
chance of wide-spread implementation?
Probably not. Since you want adoption with a current massive
installation base, the use of c=simple will not be used in practice
(and probably only used as your "canary tests"), with the more robust
canonicalization method being the norm. Because of this, I believe
that the "c=" tag should not default to simple (mainly to reduce
field size).
--ewh