[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
The utility of "I sign some" is not in the policy itself, but in the
*discovery*
part of the protocol: when you find _any_ valid record, you
know that you can stop looking for one. Depending on the
tree walking aspects of the discovery mechanism, this could
be a useful thing. Maybe it would be better to do this by not
expressing any policy/practice in the otherwise valid to get
this functionality so as not to confuse the issue with the
semantics of "I sign some" which doesn't seem to mean much.
I have no idea what use "I sign no mail" has.
I suggest that we replace 'I sign no mail' and 'I sign some mail' with
'Undefined'.
A policy mechanism with two values is going to be much easier to administer
than one with fve degrees of freedom.
One reason I want to insist on the binary choice here is that I want to
encourage publication of the only policy that is useful to a receiver. If you
allow for a weasel route you are going to have a hard time getting anyone to go
all the way. Its like the problem we have with Draft standard and Standard here
in the IETF.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html