Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:01 PM -0700 4/7/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
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'm confused. If we added the text you initially suggested, the result
would be
that a receiver would honor the signature forever. Are you saying now that
your original text needs to be amended to have a spec mandated lifetime?
I guess I worry a little about codifying an _exact_ number.
As well you should. :-)
Assuming your answer is "yes" above, then that's really what's at issue
right?
I guess I generally like to hedge against unknown eventualities.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html