Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
True, but...
A MUST does not mean optional. Most good implementators will always
begin by following the MUST specs to the letter and most will never
implement a MUST as a SHOULD or MAY (thus make it a local policy
option) unless absolutely necessary, and if its necessary to explore
it is done in a low key manner.
Since we all agree the 5322.FROM is extremely important and MUST be
bound to the signature, any reason to make this an option after 3-4
years of implementation is a very significant DKIM Project Research
data point especially when done by a large commercial MTA.
PS: The request has already been made to get the specifics on the
implementation change.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html