On Monday, August 01, 2011 08:48:04 AM Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I find it amazing how many different ways there are to criticize DKIM for
not doing something it was never intended to do. DKIM is a small building
block that enables new functionality, but such functionality is beyond the
scope of DKIM.
DKIM does one thing, and one thing only: It uses a cryptographic signature
to associate a domain with a message. By doing so, it creates strong
evidence that the message passed through that domain at some point and has
not been significantly m
...
In fairness to Hector, the functionality that he is complaining is missing was
part of the original working group charter. I think it's unfortunate (and I
said so at the time) that the group chose to define a core DKIM protocol first
and then attempt to bolt a policy mechanism on afterwards. It's rather not
suprising it didn't work out well (ADSP).
So you are correct, it does one thing and one thing only, but that's because
the WG decided to build it that way, not because the WG was limited to that.
Of course, now, it is what it is and there's no changing that, but I also
think it's reasonable to think it could have been done better.
Scott K
P.S. It's possible I may mis-remember WG versus pre-WG discussions here, but
either way it was a poor (IMO) way to attempt to tackle the work.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf