Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
-1
First of all this would break backward compatibility with the
existing DK records. Second, I don't see what the problem is with
the current sense: if you don't like subdomains, by all means set
t=s. And I can tell you from first hand experience as somebody
who has deployed this: the subdomain signing feature is
definitely being used, so the comment on draft standard does not
apply.
Inverting the meaning of the "s" flag is compatible with a
DomainKeys record, as the DomainKeys signature does not include a
separate signing identity nor an "s" flag.
Note I said "backward compatible"; this proposal is not.
It depends upon what default is desired when the "s" flag is not
specified.
Wrong. DK records sign for all subdomains. That is the current semantic.
Changing
that semantic is not backward compatible. Your desire does not get
around that
basic fact.
Mike, done.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html