On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
For typical DKIM users though, commenting on an invalid field as
"This
is probably invalid, but there might be an experimental I-D that's
using it, so maybe it's OK and receivers may or may not ignore it" is
going to be far more confusing than "This is wrong, fix it." - as if
they're using "r=" it's probably a typo or a misunderstanding, rather
than intentional use of an experimental field.
How about: "The following tags are non-standard and will likely be
ignored by most verifiers"?
Some of Tony's examples such as "h=rsa-sha1" can certainly be
reported as "invalid" as they are standardized tags with illegal
values (i.e., the legal values are enumerated).
It might be interesting to have an alternate checker that tracks the
additional fields being discussed in active I-Ds too, though. Is
there
a registry of experimental fields or list of I-Ds anywhere?
Alas, no. And it would be difficult, I think, to try to corral
people into using one in general (though the audience is currently
pretty small so for now it's a practical idea).
Ah.
If there's no registry of fields then there's nothing to say that a
receiver isn't experimenting with an r= field that's completely
different to the r= field that Tony is publishing. So it isn't safe to
assume that a receiver that isn't using Tony's definition of r= will
ignore his r= field, rather we're solidly into undefined behavior and
something that is definitely an error in a production record (as
opposed to a record used for pre-arranged testing with a specific
receiver).
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html