Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:55:08 -0700 Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
OTOH, it seems to me that it's been said Ad Nauseum. Where feasible I
agree it's better, but there are operational frictions that will impede
this approach in some cases.
What I believe that we've discovered is that this isn't nearly simple as
some people hoped. Doing as little up front as possible so that you
can get operational experience is almost certainly better than guessing --
especially when the guessing wrong is a likely outcome. In this particular
case, I dooubt there will be harm because receivers will always have an
incentive to make better decisions (and hence the desire to upgrade).
I disagree. What I think we've discovered that there is no additional
complexity for signers or authors. It is, in fact, simpler for signers.
With the need to choose the appropriate subdomain depending on which
author-domain submitted the message to the signer, I think the
complexity for signers is now about the same as for key delegation,
assuming that the signer uses the same public key for all of its
customers. About the only thing that changes from author-domain to
author-domain is the i= address and the d= domain.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html