ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-04-11 18:20:59
To prevent this task from becoming unwieldy, several related topics are
considered out of scope for the DKIM working group. These topics
include:
[...]
* Signatures that are intended to make long-term assertions beyond the
  expected transit time of a message from originator to recipient,
  which is normally only a matter of a few days at most.

Right. I'm not saying a recipient would check the signature ten years later, I'm saying he might check it ten days later, knowing that the message has been safely in his inbox for five of them.

For me, x= expresses the intent of the signer as to how long the
signature should be valid.

Yes, you've said this before, and I've pointed out that since the signer has no particular insight into what the transit time will be, there is no useful information for the recipient in the x= value.

Also, I see no consensus on what "valid" means in this context beyond an unhelpful "don't you dare check after this time even if you have a perfectly sensible reason to do so that I hadn't thought of." You can't force people to be sensible by making unenforcable rules.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html