Who said that we'd have to replace the current single character tags
with other single character tags?
There were a couple of threads last November about changing o= to use
words and splitting out the semantics around the various semantic axes
that are covered by the value (sending mail, signature presence, 3rd
party signatures, redirect).
One message that I wrote had a table, showing what a couple possible
syntaxes might be for o=
(http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001307.html, slightly
modified here):
o=-signature,-3ps signature=never,3ps=never
?/WEAK o=~signature,-3ps signature=optional,3ps=never
~/NEUTRAL o=~signature,+3ps signature=optional,3ps=allowed
!/EXCLUSIVE o=+signature,-3ps signature=always,3ps=never
-/STRONG o=+signature,+3ps signature=always,3ps=allowed
./NEVER o=nomail nomail
^/USER o=user checkuser
William Leibzon also had suggestions along the same lines
(http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001306.html):
1. Signature required/optional:
sig=MUST/SHOULD/NEVER/USER (sig=STRONG/NEUTRAL/NEVER)
2. 3rd parties allowed/not
3ps=ALLOW/DENY/USER
(Or if you like o=STRONG/3PS | o=NEUTRAL/NO3PS | o=USER/USER)
Hector Santos had several suggestions for additional values in the 3ps
space. (http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001318.html):
signature=always, 3PS=IGNORE -- Keep Original, don't strip, resign
signature=always, 3PS=APPEND -- Append, don't strip or replace.
signature=always, 3PS=RESIGN -- strip and replace.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Michael Thomas wrote:
For two reasons:
1) With my developers hat on, I couldn't really care the least:
if you have to look them up, you probably need to look up the
other single character tags too. This is just a matter of being
familiar with the spec, and h, z, b, m etc are all equally
opaque IMO.
2) I'm guessing that we will utterly fail to have a single word that
describes the rich semeantics of the policy attached to whatever
symbol we choose. Witness this latest brouhaha with "exclusive"
which is not even part of the current draft. An abstract symbol
which has no baggage of its own and is, in fact, just a pointer
to the normative text seems like a better way to avoid
misinterpretation.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html