[ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process
lear at cisco.com
Thu May 21 10:43:35 PDT 2009
On 5/21/09 6:08 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> I believe this was explicitly stated elsewhere, like on this list.
> But that's not in the spec.
That's because the topic of what a verifier does with a message was
probably viewed as out of scope. But that doesn't imply, as you agreed,
that the application of certain rules based on garbage at the end should
>>> If such behaviors are necessary to make l= meaningful and useful --
>>> and your line of frankly reasonable thinking does seem to imply
>>> this, though I doubt it was your intention -- then the specification
>>> for this bit of mechanism is seriously deficient.
>> Perhaps, but why do you think so?
> You've been relying on interpretations that aren't in the
> specification. If you restrict discussion to only using semantics
> from the specification (with the Update) then I'm not understanding
> what value proposition applies.
I think you are confusing uses for interpretations. Of course
information beyond the l= value should be treated with some suspicion.
Otherwise all that stuff that Steve mentioned can happen in some cases.
> And by the way, my original question was about who is using the
> feature and finding it valuable. Not about theoretical scenarios, but
> experience based on two years of possible use.
And see my other message. I also question the value of l=. All I was
trying to say here was that the risks are well documented and easily
More information about the ietf-dkim