Michael Thomas wrote:
Hopefully not adding to the noise, but I've seen about 5 people +1
my suggestion that t=testing should go.
Jim Fenton wrote:
+1 from me too, except that we should just remove it from the draft
rather than deprecate it.
I very much agree, testing in SSP should go.
If it weren't too late, I'd say the same for t in DKIM-base public keys.
It turns out that for most signers a feeling of a safety net (however thin)
gives them some comfort - or covers implementers' butt from their boss,
so they keep their t forever. As a consequence, recipients are forced
to purposely violate DKIM base and just ignore t in a public key, otherwise
they'd be stuck for years with processing signatures which turn out
can not be enforced due to 't'. So even if it initially appears 'testing'
may have some value, in practice it doesn't, and just adds to confusion.
I think this pretty much applies to t=y in SSP as well.
Mark
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html