[ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process
hsantos at santronics.com
Wed May 20 17:49:37 PDT 2009
Steve Atkins wrote:
> On May 20, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> That's all DKIM guarantees. It's
>> not in DKIM's scope to tell mail receivers what to do with the
>> message, signed text or otherwise. Stupid receivers are free as
>> to do stupid things. Smart receivers are free as always to do smart
>> things. As is ever was.
> Sure. The question is whether we want to have the spec encourage smart
> behavior or encourage stupid behavior.
> The existence of l= certainly allows stupid behavior, and probably
> encourages it.
Hence the DKIM policy hypocrisy. Policy Protocols are not being
worked out, yet, we have all these questionable subjective policy
based decisions being made to the DKIM base protocol that really are
not universal agreements, and like much of the decisions made based on
rough consensus, DKIM has been crippled and stagnated in many ways.
There are useful ideas for l= and like the cautions we can apply to
many useful ideas, this is no different. If a feature or idea
usefulness or lack of was obvious that would be one thing, but it isn't.
DKIM needs stability so that WIDER ADOPTION of implementators across
all markets and operations can a) take it seriously to see how it can
provide a payoff, b) see how it integrated into their frameworks and
c) see how policy can be wrapped around it.
More information about the ietf-dkim