[ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process

[Eliot Lear]

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 
not occur.



>>> 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 
mitigated.

Eliot