On Mar 10, 2009, at 4:52 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
You have suggested that many times. The WG and the BoFs before it
always disagreed. End of story as far as I'm concerned unless *many*
of those that want it as standards-track now indicate a change of
mind.
Stephen,
Unfortunately, issues related to ADSP are not independent of DKIM. To
encompass typical use, ADSP might require two separate signatures.
While ADSP could solve a problem for a fractional percentage of
domains, by providing a low level of suitability, it becomes
difficult to justify resources to support a few domains. This is
especially true in a time when resources are being reduced. DKIM
indicates the signing domain is authoritative for its signed
namespace. This authority should include signed header fields. ADSP
should not limit what signatures are in compliance. DKIM alone should
determine DKIM signature compliance!
Progress should not be measured by meeting WG schedules, it should
also encompass whether WG product meets the goals of its charter.
Dave Crocker's errata declares signing domains to be opaque, however
this approach is not supported by the DKIM charter. DKIM indicates
the signing domain is authoritative for its signed namespace. While
the i= value may not match against any header field, and may not
represent a valid email-address, it should mean something when it does
match against an email-address within a signed header field.
Otherwise, DKIM becomes a fairly useless token added to messages.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html