On May 6, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
If, indeed, a feature is unused or problematic, then how will
dropping it hurt adoption? A simpler specification typically aids
adoption, rather than hurting it.
And just to keep things real, can you cite some examples of the
effect you are concerned about?
Dave,
Deciding whether to place significant resources into services based
upon DKIM can be stymied by those that don't understand how a feature
_might_ be used productively once the services are in place. Take for
example the redefinition of the i= value that just took place within
the last errata. This represents a significant functional change with
respect to information exchange. This change can and likely will
impact both email annotation services, as well as reputation
services. These services take time to develop. Removing
"problematic" features this early IS the problem. The i= value is
optional and is not required to match against any email-address. The
i= value only adds information, provided of course the definition for
this field and its exchange is not changed.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html