On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
It is premature to try to guess how internationalized email
addresses will
look or be handled. We should not cover this in DKIM until the
work in the
EAI WG is finished.
+1
+1
+1...
Creating critical dependencies on a specific outcome of a difficult
and
controversial bit of IETF work -- and especially one with a long
history -- is a
really excellent way to fail.
This seems to be a comment against SSP. The alternative being
suggested makes no assumptions about internationalization or a
recipient's ability to recognize an email-address. Whereas SSP
protection through categorization of non-signed messages depends
primarily upon the increasingly questionable recognitions which are
already impacted by domain name internationalization that is not
affected by the outcome of the EAI WG. The threat draft has already
concluded this threat represents a high impact high likelihood. If
nothing else there was already some consensus regarding this
concern. There are no dependencies related to the suggested
solutions however.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html