On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:29:11 +0100, Lisa Dusseault
<lisa(_dot_)dusseault(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
A) auth-header to not require any feature advertising or
auto-configuration
B) auth-header to normatively RECOMMEND some kind of feature advertising
C) auth-header to normatively REQUIRE some kind of feature advertising
A, or at most B + DKIM signing.
A means the minimal amout of handwaving that points to possible solutions,
and maybe mentions some "future work".
Separately, the unspecified feature advertising or auto-conf should be
(choose one or more):
1) IMAP Capabilities advertising
2) E/SMTP capabilities
3) IMAP annotations
4) Something else
5) Nothing
1/2/3 are all possible future work, not to be done in a rush.
4 includes (I presume) DKIM signing.
But for the time being I would rather stick with 5. We need the header out
there with well-defined synyax/semantics so people can start using it for
all sorts of purposes, and we need it there NOW, at the same time as SSP
is being released, so MTAs can get on with implementing the two things
together.
The problem we are now being asked to address is MUAs, and their
communication with MTAs, which is a separate topic (and one on which the
IETF has traditionally kept away from).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html