ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
> Messing with the syntax is a really bad idea IMO. I understand that
> there is some discomfort in embedding information in tokens like
> this, but it has the feature that it beats the alternatives.
And the feature of production code.
> I might feel differently if I felt this was going to turn into a
> completely open-ended thing. But I see little chance of our adding
> additional orthogonal security facilities to SMTP in the future. What
> you see is all there is.
Sure?
Given the incredible difficulty involved in creating and standardizing new
facilities of this sort, yes, I'm reasonably sure.
If Submit warrants adding two/four more tokens (see private mail from
Chris), clearly extensions other than security facilities can add
tokens.
I do hope there won't be more of these tokens, but I won't be surprised
if future i-d authors have very fertile imagination. The designers of
RMX, DMP and SPF spring to mind.
These are all sender verification schemes, not protocol extensions that
make sense to indicate in the protocol name token.
Ned