-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott
Kitterman
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:08 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871 5322.From Binding - Proposal to relax it.
I think it will serve the community interest to find out why this
large MTA vendor revised there open source software three years later
presumably after extensive field operations to include a new option to
relaxed the 5322.From binding.
Finding out why sounds reasonable. What you propose isn't finding out
why, but
assuming it's valuable without bothering to find out.
We have extensions that go beyond DKIM and ADSP in OpenDKIM. Lots of 'em.
They generally fall into two categories (and some fall into both):
One category is local policy stuff. These are decisions made about message
handling after the DKIM evaluation is complete. They are well outside the
scope of DKIM and ADSP, but they are generally useful to administrators. They
aren't there to make any indication that a part of the protocol was broken,
because in fact they have little if anything to do with the protocol.
The other is experimental code. These are things that we thought might be
useful, some of which do adjust the actual DKIM processing beyond what the RFC
says, and are presented with a "We think you might want/need/like this. Try it
out if you want, and let us know if you like it." Such feedback, when we get
it, is returned to the working group as input to the process.
Neither class of extension is a statement by us that extensive field operations
has yielded this as a flaw in the protocol or a required extension. Absent a
statement by this other open source project to that effect, I would just assume
it's another knob people can try.
Since I'm pretty sure we're talking about Alt-N here, I'll ask them.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html