[ietf-dkim] Re: dkim service

[Dave Crocker]

>> Could have sworn we were talking about formal standards and what 
>> works for them, rather than what kinds of informal heuristics people 
>> use.  Please cite a standard that has that specifies the kind of 
>> trust ambiguity you are promoting.
>
> RFC 2822, section 3.6.7.

Given that Received fields are very poor for sequential tracing, are 
often highly ambiguous, and are even used for spoofing, I'm not sure why 
you are citing an example that demonstrates my concern.


> Just because a protocol provides information doesn't mean
> that we have to specify *every* possible outcome of a service.

So I guess it's a good thing that that's not what I said.

d/