On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:58:55 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 1:31 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] How about that DKIM charter update proposal
Re the ADSP data collection, I'd like to add a third option to move it
to Historic if ADSP turns out to be as useful as I think, but I
realize this is unlikely to be a popular suggestion.
How about "Experimental"?
Why is it more experimental now than when it was published?
From the beginning, I have not had the impression that the policy piece of
the charter has not been taken very seriously. Publishing All/Discardable
does take some significant effort to make sure all of an entities MTAs are
reliably signing. I think it's way premature to have an opinion about if
it will get used or not.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html