ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: get rid of x=

2006-04-07 17:18:28

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>


I'm sorry, just saying that the protocol is for "transport time" is not 
going to help developers, and is likely to lead to the 
inconsistencies and incompatibility that you are trying to get 
rid of. x= leaves it as a decision of the signer to determine
what it wants. Letting a receiver just pick a number out of 
thin air is definitely not what we want -- especially when 
? some dumb receivers would find it oh-so-suspicious
that mail didn't get to them in the normal 20 minutes and declare the 
signature dead.

The x=tag is the less of DKIM worries.  See the t=y tag:

    // Local Policy:
    // - Watch for Perpetual Testing (t=y) Abusers 
    // - 6 months Default

    if (IsTesting() && TestingDays() > LocalPolicy.MaxTestingDays) {
        WasteBasket()
        return 551;
    }

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com





_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html