On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:07:22AM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly wrote:
Remove x=
IMO, there is a precise and purposeful rationale. I can come up with
atleast a dozen reasons or more why a signer may want to utilize an
expiration concept.
As you say, and I agree, the benefits flow mostly, if not entirely, to
the signer ... even though earlier discussions mooted benefits to the
verifier.
As I understand it, when x= expires the signer wants verifiers to
treat the mail as unverified - in effect signers get to disclaim
responsibility for that email after a certain point in time.
This seems entirely at odds with DKIM which is about senders taking
responsibility for an email for the benefit of the verifier.
DKIM is not about senders taking responsibility for just 5 seconds or
just 5 minutes or just 5 days. If a mail is signed and sent, a sender
has no right, in my mind, to subsequently disclaim
responsibility. It's their content; they wear the consequences
forever.
In short: x= gives senders wiggle room to expire responsibility - that
seems at odds with our goals.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html