Jon Callas wrote:
-----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, this is one of John's typical strawmen arguments. Putting an expiration
on a signature doesn't "obligate" the receiver to do anything any more than
putting a bh= does. The receiver is always free to do what it feels like
with that information including ignoring RFC4871. Everything in RFC4871 is
offered as information that a sender can provide receivers to make better
decisions, nothing more, nothing less.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html