At 5:04 PM -0700 4/24/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 3:32 PM -0700 4/24/06, Jim Fenton wrote:
More good questions. "I, the sender, want this to not be able to be
validated after this date" is all well and good, but the sender's
wishes go directly against the recipient's wishes, which are to
have as many validated messages as possible.
That's not correct. The receiver's motivation is to defend itself.
Correct.
Validating messages
a priori does not do that.
True, but does it hurt to do so? If a recipient validates a message
that has "expired", what is the harm to the recipient? The advatage,
of course, is that they are now sure where the message came from;
this is the same as in the normal, unexpired case.
If a sender through its own policy says "don't trust/honor/blame me
this after this time", why should a receiver not honor that?
If that policy makes no sense for the recipient (the sender was
responsible at time X but not at time X+1), then the recipient would
still want to know whether the message came from the putative source.
That information only negatively
reflects on the message, so a receiver should be happy to know.
Some recipients might be, others might not care.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html