I think it would be good to explain the use of the various methods with
the various ptypes. I just don't agree with it being placed into the
syntax layer.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Michael Thomas wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
I disagree with this suggestion. I don't think it's necessary to move
all semantics down into the syntactic level. The lexical layer doesn't
need to be overloaded to this degree.
Just my two bits; YMMV.
So do you also disagree with explaining and limiting which methods
should use the various ptypes? Neither the syntax or discussion of
semantics gives any guidance at all.
Mike
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Michael Thomas wrote:
I'd like to suggest that the current ABNF doesn't do a very good job at
limiting silly states, in particular about the relationship of propspecs
to methodspecs. What exactly does dkim=hardfail smtp.mailfrom mean? I'm
pretty sure that it's meaningless, but neither does the ABNF limit this,
nor does the current draft even discuss why you'd choose one of the
ptypes at all.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html