ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration

2009-06-02 07:09:39
My suggestion is to ask some implementers. If they think it made  
implementing DKIM hard, or they see value to removing it, then do so.  

The biggest problem with x= is that it mainly exists to support the
false belief that senders can tell recipients what to do.

If I sign a message with x= set to three years in the future, what's a
recipient supposed to do?  How about three months?  Three weeks?
Three days?  Three minutes?  I don't understand what is right thing
for a receiver to do with x= and I don't think anyone else does
either.

A reasonable verifier can completely ignore x= and still get the right
result in all non-silly cases, which tells me that x= should go.

R's,
John

PS: This is the same reason that l= should go.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html