At 12:01 PM -0700 4/7/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
If what the WG wants is signatures whose life is the time of
transit, we should say that in the protocol definition, not
optionally in each message.
The alternative is to just put normative guidance in the document to
the effect
that x= MUST be greater than t=+2weeks, and less than t=+2 months or
something,
and that it SHOULD be set to t=+4 weeks.
That is an alternative, but I would ask "why use that alternative".
Unless x= is compelling, and compelling enough to overcome its
faults, why even put it in with these suggested knob-settings? I
claim that it is not compelling, particularly if the document says
what the purpose of DKIM signatures are.
I guess I worry a little about codifying an _exact_ number.
As well you should. :-)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html