Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Given that most protocols do not have a 'testing' flag -- and they manage to
> move into production quite nicely -- a different question might be why such a
> flag is needed...
>   
Hrm, let's see - the SMTP protocol has EXPN, VRFY, and, well RSET - 
meaning I'm just kidding, reset the session and start over. POP3 has 
RSET too. What about ping, and traceroute, in a more general sense ?
SMTP didn't have an undo to the DATA command - so we couldn't just say 
OK, sorry, I just dumped this message on you, but was just testing out 
my DK implementation, please just ignore your verification results in 
the processing of the message.
In the earlier days of DK, one of the hurdles I had to convince our 
management it was a good idea to experiment with DK signing,  was how 
would receivers handle issues with our implementations, before we were 
convinced it was working - and we were a pretty large volume mailer at 
the time, who were concerned about customer churn over things like 
undelivered mail. Without this "grace" period of checking out our 
implementation, it would  have been a harder sell to the people in 
management above me as it was.
That said, perhaps at this point, having a test flag engraved in the 
protocol now may be a bit obsolete with a more mature SSP framework. I 
do fail to see the damage and dooom hat some are attributing to this 
test mode though, as receivers will act to their best interests anyway, 
no matter what the signers policy states...
David

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