[ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: deprecate t=testing
mike at mtcc.com
Tue Dec 11 12:29:43 PST 2007
Hopefully not adding to the noise, but I've seen about 5 people +1
my suggestion that t=testing should go.
Jon Callas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>>> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> Part of the problem is that "softfail" and "hardfail" don't make
>>>> much intuitive sense.
>>> For SPF (and Sender ID) a SOFTFAIL is what SSP has as t-flag, and
>>> an Authentication-Results: hardfail is just a FAIL (for SPF etc.).
>>> For receivers accepting "hardfail", not exactly the ideal course,
>>> but receivers are free to shoot into their own foot. Aim higher.
>> Well, FWIW, I don't think that t=testing is at all helpful either.
>> for example, does p=strict, t=testing mean? It seems like a silly-
>> to me and ripe for confusion. It's that sort of subjective state
>> that we
>> should both learn from SPF and avoid.
More information about the ietf-dkim