[ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: base-00 3.5 x=
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sat Feb 11 13:59:00 PST 2006
Michael Thomas wrote:
>> That could be a third case for STRONG signing policies.
> And this I'm pretty sure leads us down a rathole we don't
> want to go. It's just fine for MUA's to do the verification,
> but their expectations shouldn't be what drives the standard,
Maybe it's a hole that can be blocked elsewhere. Doug found an
interesting way of (ab)using intentionally short expirations.
> lots of MDA's torture messages into unverifiable messes
Do they ? Maybe I was lucky, I've never seen that with several
ISPs. Or you're talking about servers that I won't consider as
>> It's also possible to say "MUST NOT, but" if it's clear what
>> the "but" is about.
> Or just not say anything as Dave mentions.
If there are forseeable non-nonsense scenarios, where checking
DKIM might not always work as expected, we should mention it
> If it turns out we're wrong, we haven't made an irreversable
As long as the caveats are documented I won't insist on using
MUSTard to make them more interesting than they are... :-) Bye
More information about the ietf-dkim