ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2009-06-02 18:08:22
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jun 2, 2009, at 4:04 AM, John Levine wrote:

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.

I agree. As a receiver, I laugh in the face of the very notion that am  
obligated to do anything with a message other than as I will.

        Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFKJZ78sTedWZOD3gYRAqj9AJ0QSYS8WesurhwMvwPNMbfiliirkwCfTLqg
yeo8utzIclzimYPko37D6N8=
=LvlD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html