ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices

2006-09-05 10:27:35

From: Douglas Otis [mailto:dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org] 

On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:


Using the term 'practices' instead of policy is not going to fool 
anyone, the objection is to the idea, not the name. The 
term practices 
is highly loaded and has its own meaning and will cause even more 
people to shudder.

The term "practice" over "policy" acknowledges information 
conveyed is not action related instruction for the verifier.  
This information  
instead offers assurances regarding an initial state of the 
message.   
While DKIM is a good mechanism for safe message annotation 
(provided other assurances are made), signature requirements 
for acceptance will disrupt many common email services.  
Within the current DKIM limitations, rigid verifier 
instructions would not be compatible with email in general.  
The term "practice" better conveys this design limitation, 
and better clarifies how this mechanism might be used.

I agree that the record ONLY contains a statement by the sender that is 
descriptive of sender actions.

However the record is not bound by protocol to the actual actions of the sender 
and so the term 'practices' cannot be used with accuracy. What the record 
specifies is in fact the intended practice.

The English term for an intended practice is 'policy'.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>