[ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=

[Douglas Otis]

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 07:44 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:

> In summary, the straw poll gave us a status quo, but now have a proposal to
> water it down.  When you use SHOULD, per RFC 2119, then you must have
> "carefully weighted" reason to choose to ignore the domain telling you to
> reject or invalid a signature.

The current draft already offers too many options with respect to
rejection.  If there is a reason to reject the message or the signature,
the desire would be to have all MTAs make the same choice.  Every
difference between MTAs may create a problem down-stream.  My "tongue-
in-cheek" rewording of t= text was to draw attention to that issue.
Choices for the l=, and d= != i= should also be changed to a SHOULD
reject.  Adding x= to this list of do-what-you-want furthers these types
of problems.

Deferred issues within the AU might be a notable exception, but how
secure are these internal MTAs?

-Doug