On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:02:10 +0100, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Fine! Then let us write a BCP.
No. The more documents people need to read to understand the mail
system, the more difficult it is to implement and deploy.
Fine! Then adopt my second suggestion, which was to make the BCP a clearly
designated section within the ADSP document.
... Let us help
those who actually are trying to implement this stuff to do the right
thing. Especially when we know omitting the check would be precisely
the wrong thing.
Exactly, so write it all as a BCP section, as I suggested. It cannot be
100% normative because we have no means of REQUIRING Verifiers to behave
in any particular way, or even to Verify at all. But we can make it very
clear just what they are _expected_ to do.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html