Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's my opinion that "strict" means far too many things to far
too many people. Instead of rehabilitating the term, I'd far
prefer that we pick something else and really define what it
means. I'm not sure that I've achieved that and would appreciate
help, but reverting back to the handle that nobody seems to agree
on doesn't strike me as very helpful.
o DKIM Strict: the state where the domain holder believes that all
legitimate mail purportedly from the domain are sent with a
valid DKIM signature and that non-compliant services are avoided.
What is difficult to understand with this definition? Is a
definition needed for non-compliant services?
How does this differ from scenario #1?
This definition better pertains to scenario #1 than does DKIM Signer
Complete which fails to offer assurances that non-compliant services
are believed to have been avoided. This defined state allows greater
clarity when attempting to differentiate between Scenario #1 and #2.
The term "Strict" was borrowed from Eric's draft.
So is this an issue of just wanting to inject the word "strict"
somewhere into scenario #1?
If so, I've already said why I don't think that's helpful.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html