[ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"

[Damon]

+1

Sorry.. no time to reitterate what has already been said.

Regards,
Damon Sauer

On 10/14/06, Scott Kitterman <ietf-dkim at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 October 2006 14:51, DKIM Chair wrote:
>
> > That left issue 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail"
> > issue.  The initial proposal was to remove the text, considering it to
> > be a special case of "strict", but when Doug opened that back on the
> > list there was significant support to keep it.  I'll put that back out
> > to the list now (please put the issue number in the subject line): If
> > you object to leaving it in, please say so and say why.
>
> I think that being able to express 'we never send mail' is important.
>
> There is already one way to express this defined as part of an experimental
> protocol in RFC 4408 that has significant deployment.  While that is a
> controversial protocol in general, I do not think that most of the
> controversy applies to domains that send no mail.  That one piece could be
> broken out in a separate draft without carrying forward the aspects of the
> experimental protocol that some find problematic.
>
> Instead of defining yet another way to express the same thing (which may at
> least be arguably outside the charter of the group), an alternative approach
> might be for this working group to punt 'we never send mail' back to the
> AD/IESG (I'm still hazy on lots of IETF process, so forgive me if that's the
> wrong direction) with a recommendation that this is something the group feels
> will support receivers in evaluating DKIM signed mail, but that the group
> felt was better addressed elsewhere.
>
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>