[ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=
jon at callas.org
Thu Apr 20 11:34:39 PDT 2006
On 19 Apr 2006, at 10:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> What is the interoperability or harm-limiting purpose of verifiers
> checking x= values? If there is none, the sentence above needs to
> be a MAY.
I don't want to torture people with my reasoning, but x= needs to be
a MAY, but for possibly different reasons.
My reasons are that I don't think that an implementer needs to
"carefully weigh" whether to implement x=. I think that casually
weighing it is just fine. I've been thinking a lot about uses for x=,
and some of them might allow someone to game DKIM against other parts
of a mail filtering system. And yes, I know that this comes close to
conflating SHOULD-implement vs. SHOULD-deploy, but I would not think
ill of an implementor whose decision was "I don't understand it well,
so I'm not implementing it," which is the antithesis of SHOULD.
More information about the ietf-dkim