Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jun 9, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
So we need to be careful about assuming that any of these tests are
likely to be "free". In fact, one bit of feedback I got was
explicit about these additional tests as costing too much. They had
tried and found they added too much delay.
In view of the fact that there is incremental cost, I would like to
suggest that we change the SHOULD [check MX & A/AAAA] to a MAY. With
that change, I'm happy with the text John proposes.
When the desire is to get the draft completed ASAP, eliminate it
having any domain validity check. When a domain validity checks
becomes MAY, publishers can not be assured of any sub-domain
protections anyway.
Since it apparently isn't clear: I am proposing retaining the NXDOMAIN
domain validity check as a MUST. It is only the MX and A/AAAA check
that I'm proposing be changed from a SHOULD to a MAY.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html