On Nov 11, 2006, at 1:27 PM, David Sanchez wrote:
Mike, does this have anything to do with SSP or DKIM though?
I really think we are losing focus here.
I thought DKIM purposes does not include specific actions of MTA nor
MUA for mails, being signed, not signed or badly signed.
IMHO, DKIM purpose is making information available, Is up to the
MTA/MUA what it does with this information. But i can be tremendously
wrong :-S .
If nobody is ever going to use a piece of information, then expending
a lot of effort and complexity to make it available is a mistake.
Given that, plausible use cases are part of the process of deciding
what to keep and what not to.
Also, if there's a dependency on other standards for some functionality
(for example, a third party accreditation system of some sort) then that
dependency needs to be understood, so as to make sure that they
are flexible enough to work with some subset of reasonable systems.
(I don't see much along those lines with dkim-base, so none of these
issues should slow dkim development and deployment, but I do see
them all over with SSP).
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html