[ietf-dkim] Policy vs Practices
dotis at mail-abuse.org
Tue Sep 5 10:09:22 PDT 2006
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Using the term 'practices' instead of policy is not going to fool
> anyone, the objection is to the idea, not the name. The term
> practices is highly loaded and has its own meaning and will cause
> even more people to shudder.
The term "practice" over "policy" acknowledges information conveyed
is not action related instruction for the verifier. This information
instead offers assurances regarding an initial state of the message.
While DKIM is a good mechanism for safe message annotation (provided
other assurances are made), signature requirements for acceptance
will disrupt many common email services. Within the current DKIM
limitations, rigid verifier instructions would not be compatible with
email in general. The term "practice" better conveys this design
limitation, and better clarifies how this mechanism might be used.
More information about the ietf-dkim