mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Discussion of auth-header draft (fwd)

2008-10-10 23:42:01


Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I am still trying to get my head around this, but I am thinking that 
defining a new ESMTP capability for "I provide authentication services 
and strip bogus Authentication-Results header fields" would be a half 
hour job, so why not do that?

My concern isn't that writing the draft is hard.  I'm more concerned 
with the fact that getting MTA adoption of such a thing will take longer 
than just saying the header should be DKIM-signed such that the MUA can 
verify it's valid (or one of the other solutions that doesn't touch 
other components).

+1.  And getting standards approval will introduce additional day, typically no 
less than one year, and more typically 2-3.  Yeah, this could be short.  Could 
be.

The task of writing a simple spec is almost never the interesting part of 
creating a successful Internet protocol.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>