On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:32 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
It does not mean low value mail and I don't think you will find a
sending mplementing dkim=discardable that would agree with you.
Then in the RFC we utterly failed to make it clear what dkim=discardable
means. Sigh.
Once again, we see that ADSP is so broken that even people who like it
don't understand what it is for.
R's,
But John, you clearly never wanted ADSP to exist and you've made enough
statements publicly about your motivation for becoming a co-author that it
should come as no surprise if folks don't interpret your comments regarding
ADSP with the same deference one normally expects in response to comments
coming from a co-author.
I suspect your fellow authors didn't realize you'd use this label change of
"discardable" as ammunition after-the-fact to lobby for ADSP's disuse.
Perhaps it's time to issue an update to ADSP which clarifies how the spec
should be interpreted, by those who actually use it.
-- Brett
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html