Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 11:30 PM +0100 7/1/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
3.6.1, "s=". Given that new tags can be added to key records
without affecting compliant implementations, I don't see why this
is needed now and suggest deleting it.
Agree, but could also be happy leaving it in for some odd extension.
I'd say that it's better to leave it in than not because if new records are
added for different purposes (eg s=espresso-over-ip) a compliant DKIM
will not allow those keys use for smtp, whereas if we extended it later
they would.
Ah, ok - so the intent is that I don't ignore "s=foo" if I know that
"s=email" exists. I'd read it as saying that verifiers could ignore
that too but I guess your interpretation makes more sense. Maybe adding
a sentence like "Verifiers that expect a particular value for this
tag MUST NOT use records containing some other value."
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html