On 10/6/2010 1:57 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Apologies all for top posting. Having to use a different client due to
technical difficulties.
Murray, I'm violently agreeing with you that it is not strictly
speaking a 4871 issue.
Having said that, I believe that it is an issue that begs the
question... where should it land? You are correct that this is the
difference between implementation and standards. Either way, we need
to look at the outcomes of what we do.
I'm agreeing with you that IETF-DKIM may not be the place to address
it...assuming there is a beleif that it is a problem at all. So the
first question is whether this is a problem, if the consensus is that
it isn't a problem, great...nothing more need be done.
If the consensus is that it is a problem but not really a 4871 problem
then do we just walk away from it and leave it at that - "not our
problem"? Should we perhaps look for the place where the 5322 people
roost (I hear that working group shut down as part of IETF reorg) and
at least say... "hey, this came up in the context of 4871 and we
believe there may be some wider implications and it may be worth
considering whether 5322 should be considered in light of this".
One possibility is in a bis version of the Development, Deployment and
Operations document.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html