----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <phoffman(_at_)proper(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: What the verifier can do
silence would be, ummm, golden.
an added benefit would be that we could all stop talking about them in
this standards process...
Well, that isn't realistic.
There are too many inconsistencies and problems with the base specs and most
of the resolution will be based on what one thinks how the world should
work - heuristically.
If the specs was indeed more "mechanical" - spokes and wheels, leg bone
connected to the hip bone, etc, that really have nothing to do with your
opinion, then you might have a chance and less pressure to use "heuristics"
to resolve its many inconsistencies.
DKIM is a, dare I say, an unprotected protocol, and signature authorization
and usage will play a vital role for verifiers to help protect the "new
responsibility" you have placed on domains.
Lack there of, simply adds to more mail pollution and the victims will be
verifiers and the domains who won't have confidence in expecting a
consistent set of "heuristics" in the network.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html