[ietf-dkim] Re: DKIM and mailing lists

[Dave Crocker]

> 
> I guess the obvious next question then would be: why only two? That
> is, are there other use cases which are sufficiently different that
> some level of extensibility is needed?

hadn't been thinking of a restriction in number.  the general model seems to be:

Permit multiple signatures that do not (necessarily) conflict.

Personally, I'm extremely worried that this will create mayhem, but there have 
been simple, reasonable -- and maybe even compelling -- usage examples that 
would be wrong to prevent.

So my own view is simplicity and expediency means that we should not go through 
the design of the different scenarios, but flexibility and power mean that we 
also should not do anything knowingly to prevent experimenting with them.


> This could represent a potential slippery slope,

yup.


  but if we added
> some kind of signature typing, with each type having associated
> rules, we could define two types now, (perhaps originating MTA
> and list server) and then someone else could define others later
> on.

signature "typing"?

I suggest, instead, that we make sure the signature header remains extensible 
and that any future decision that we need to adding parameters, such as a type 
field, be pursued then.  Later.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>