On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 07:44 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
In summary, the straw poll gave us a status quo, but now have a proposal to
water it down. When you use SHOULD, per RFC 2119, then you must have
"carefully weighted" reason to choose to ignore the domain telling you to
reject or invalid a signature.
The current draft already offers too many options with respect to
rejection. If there is a reason to reject the message or the signature,
the desire would be to have all MTAs make the same choice. Every
difference between MTAs may create a problem down-stream. My "tongue-
in-cheek" rewording of t= text was to draw attention to that issue.
Choices for the l=, and d= != i= should also be changed to a SHOULD
reject. Adding x= to this list of do-what-you-want furthers these types
of problems.
Deferred issues within the AU might be a notable exception, but how
secure are these internal MTAs?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html