John R Levine wrote:
If by some miracle people actually rolled their keys over every
week -- as Mark is to be suggesting as the alternative to x=
-- then your use case would not work either.
Quite true. So what?
It means that your corner cases are not valid uses of DKIM.
To me the answer is obviously
yes. How do you handle that with x= ?
This is a false dilemma because you are requiring dkim to work in
situations that it was explicitly not intended to work for.
Uh, what situations are those? If DKIM isn't useful for mail sent to
humans with MUAs, why are we wasting our time?
A nice strawman.
If your issue is that the time was a week, change the x= time to 15
minutes, the mail still lands in the recipient's mailbox in 10 seconds,
and the user reads mail once an hour. Same problem.
Then you're not giving x= a value that is in line with the spec either.
DKIM is intended to work over the normal transport lifetime of a mail
message.
This is really not rocket science. You set x= to t= +2 weeks and you're
done.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html