On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:14:34 -0000, Douglas Otis
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 13:17 -0500, John L wrote:
> Why strengthen a bad statement that attempts to declare DKIM is to be
> done only at the MTA?
Nobody's made such a statement. I don't understand the point of
spending
the group's time arguing about a straw man.
I do not agree at all.
[In particular, deferring verification until the message is accessed by
the end user is discouraged.]
Removing unnecessary language in this statement leaves:
"In particular, verification by the end user is discouraged."
No it doesn't. What the first statement discourages is omitting
verification at the MTA on the grounds that the MUA might be a better
place (observe the word "deferring"). There is no discouragement whatsover
against an MUA repeating, for its own benefit, a verification (and more
likely a different policy interpretation) that has already been performed
by the MTA.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html