ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Change to Section 6

2007-01-21 11:22:19
Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:57:57 -0000, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:

The statement in question, if anything, which applies to the general case offline or online mail clients, simply states:

    "Delayed VERIFICATION is discouraged after reception of a
     signed DKIM message."

No, it doesn't say that either.

In so many words, thats is EXACTLY what it means. The more you delay the verification, the higher the chances of finding revoked keys. Common sense? Absolutely. The very first sentence begins with that premise.

I think that, since this wording is being interpreted in different ways by different peopls, it is a clear case of needing rewriting so that _everyone_ agrees what it means.

Nah, its fine IMO. The only disagreement is ONE person (guess who? DOUG) who just wants DKIM processing moved to the MUA - PERIOD and we already had lengthy discussions on the issue of delayed verifications either at the MTA, MDA or MUA and their timing relationship to revoked and/or expired keys.

See

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-santos-dkim-rcvd-00.txt

---
HLS

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>