[ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 //
DKIM Strict definition needed.
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Sep 21 11:15:55 PDT 2006
Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Douglas Otis wrote:
>>> On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> It's my opinion that "strict" means far too many things to far
>>>> too many people. Instead of rehabilitating the term, I'd far
>>>> prefer that we pick something else and really define what it
>>>> means. I'm not sure that I've achieved that and would appreciate
>>>> help, but reverting back to the handle that nobody seems to agree
>>>> on doesn't strike me as very helpful.
>>> o DKIM Strict: the state where the domain holder believes that all
>>> legitimate mail purportedly from the domain are sent with a
>>> valid DKIM signature and that non-compliant services are avoided.
>>> What is difficult to understand with this definition? Is a
>>> definition needed for non-compliant services?
>> How does this differ from scenario #1?
> This definition better pertains to scenario #1 than does DKIM Signer
> Complete which fails to offer assurances that non-compliant services
> are believed to have been avoided. This defined state allows greater
> clarity when attempting to differentiate between Scenario #1 and #2.
> The term "Strict" was borrowed from Eric's draft.
So is this an issue of just wanting to inject the word "strict"
somewhere into scenario #1?
If so, I've already said why I don't think that's helpful.
More information about the ietf-dkim