Michael Thomas wrote:
Wietse Venema wrote:
In my opinion, as one of the authors listed on the ASP draft, SSP-02
is close enough in spirit to ASP that I could live with either.
The protocol is extensible. Let's gain experience with this basic
protocol and let experience teach us where extensions will be useful.
I have to say that I _really_ like discardable... I wish I'd thought of
that in the requirements draft as it really captures the jist of what I was
trying to get at.
You mean that the careful semantics that we tried to use, in not
directly saying what we wanted or what was really going to to happen
with 'suspicious or non-compliant" was a problem?
I see no difference in SSP::DKIM=STRICT or ASP::DKIM=DISCARDABLE, other
than one was "beating around the bunch" but all verifiers know what was
the ultimate outcome and this other is being more specific.
This is really all very strange.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html