On 19 Apr 2006, at 10:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
What is the interoperability or harm-limiting purpose of verifiers
checking x= values? If there is none, the sentence above needs to
be a MAY.
I don't want to torture people with my reasoning, but x= needs to be
a MAY, but for possibly different reasons.
My reasons are that I don't think that an implementer needs to
"carefully weigh" whether to implement x=. I think that casually
weighing it is just fine. I've been thinking a lot about uses for x=,
and some of them might allow someone to game DKIM against other parts
of a mail filtering system. And yes, I know that this comes close to
conflating SHOULD-implement vs. SHOULD-deploy, but I would not think
ill of an implementor whose decision was "I don't understand it well,
so I'm not implementing it," which is the antithesis of SHOULD.
Jon
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html