----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
We are not going to fix mistaken beliefs with technical constraints.
However, I am afaid to say, that is exactly whats going to happen when
receivers and the world begin to see an avalanche of DKIM-BASE failures, a
high potential chaos condition evolving from the mistaken beliefs of how
DKIM-BASE only advocates think it should be used based on WORDS only.
I believe we have strong and broad agreement that it would be
useful to publish "I sign everything". This is of basic benefit,
when receiving a message that is not signed.
I believe we do not have strong or broad agreement on any
other features.
Dave, I think if you want this to move forward you are going to have to read
and make the attempt to *understand* about what people are saying and be
more compromising.
You need to include migration and deployments considerations where there
will be many domains who will add a POLICY but not necessarily yet directly
support DKIM/SSP.
This is exactly what happen with SPF. SPF began to take off when AOL
announced SPF support by adding a POLICY but had yet to directly support it
yet. That is when we jumped on board. Before that, we were still on the
fence if it was worth the effort. Same with most of the big ISP domains.
My personal DSL account, bellsouth.net has a SPF policy, but has yet to
support it directly. Same is true with thousands of big domains.
The same will most likely happen with DKIM and you should be very happy if
they do because it will help with your promotion.
Therefore, two more policies should be part of the 1st party signature only
direction:
- I never send mail with this domain
- I never sign with this domain
Dave, this is GOOD, not BAD and it will help with the technical sales of
DKIM.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html