On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 07:53 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
WRT your point, I agree. Perhaps we need to add another bit along the
lines of, "If an email is deferred based on lack of response to the
query for the public key, the verifier SHOULD NOT indefinitely defer
the message. While messages SHOULD be deferred for temporary DNS
issues, lack of response to a query for a public key alone SHOULD NOT
result in messages being permanently rejected."
Deferred handling allows recovery from equipment faults which may take
hours or days. Holding state for such situations could create a sizable
overhead. Unless there is a reason to believe there may be some issue
at the receiver, continued deferral seems appropriate.
Deferring before attempting to utilize an alternative RR type is a
separate issue.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html