On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:14 AM, J D Falk wrote:
Do you think that the change to _asp or _adsp or _frodo and all/
discardable will cause unhappiness amongst your installed base, or
should we keep going with the near-consensus changes?
Concerns raised about the term "discardable" have to do with the
related action thereby implied. This action is likely inappropriate
for those that once expected to be asserting they are the sole signers
of their domain. Those that give up delivery integrity for security
deserve neither. Rather than arguing against this suggested assertion
and its related action, a different assertion is still needed to
preserve delivery integrity. A reporting mechanism does not offer a
practical solution for the problem the "discardable" assertion might
create, and invites possible exploits of its own. Perhaps the term
"strict", "sole", or "exclusive" must be added to prevent customer
unhappiness. I can imagine the conversation, "Why did you set a
policy that requested discarding my domain's messages?" When this is
the desired result, then the assertion would be fine. When this is
not the desired result, a different assertion would be necessary. The
bottom line is that the "discardable" can not be used to solve the
problem defined in RFC 5016.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html