ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-04-11 07:51:35
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 6:38 AM -0700 4/11/06, Michael Thomas wrote:

This is a false dilemma because you are requiring dkim to work in
situations that it was explicitly not intended to work for.


If MUAs are not supposed to be validating messages, then we need to change the -base spec in many places.

You can't have both ways: either signatures are valid essentially
forever -- which is what would be required for MUA's to reliably
validate signatures -- or they aren't. MUA's that happen to be
able to read the message within "transport" time are perfectly at
liberty to validate messages -- no restrictions at all. But that's
a much different proposition than saying that they will be able to
validate them whenever they get around to reading them. That is not
the problem we set off trying to solve.

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