Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:17:01 -0000, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Another obvious case which should be explicitly mentioned in the
'DKIM-signing-complete' explanation is SenderID spf2.0/pra: Even
if we don't care about PRA, a PRA == 2822-From is a normal case.
A domain claiming to be 'DKIM-signing-complete' has to be sure that
there's some DKIM-signing agent on _all_ routes before one of their
spf2.0/pra PASS or NEUTRAL IPs. Otherwise they screwed up, causing
harm for mails "from" their domain.
I think that last is a fair point. But I'm still not convinced that
it's up to the DKIM WG (now) to figure out all details of all such
gatewaying cases, which is where we'd be heading if we start on that
road.
I think it is up to the DKIM WG to try to spot all the things that are
likely to break when DKIM starts to be implemented, and to do what it
can in its drafts to forestall them.
No. "All" is not reasonable. (Obvious, non-controversial things are
easy, of course, but I've not seen many of those.)
As chair, if someone wants to write up a personal draft explaining
such details then I'd be fine with the group considering its adoption.
(Or inclusion in the overview document.)
I am not fine with considering an unbounded number of possibly
controversial protocol interactions before doing something.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html