[ietf-dkim] Resigner Support of RFC 5617 (ADSP)

[hector]

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>> I'm (obviously) not as much of a fatalist when it comes using dkim=all. I
>> believe there are things that one can usefully do, such as to "raise the bar"
>> on content filtering, if a message fails a dkim=all ADSP.
> 
> Jim,
> 
> What you write sounds great.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what its software or
> operations impact could or should be.
> 
> This isn't about being a fatalist; it is about protocol semantics and whether
> non-participating intermediaries experience a failure that is not their fault.


+1

> If we are to assert conclusions of operational effect or non-effect, we need to 
> be very careful that it is based on reasonable methodology. That you are not 
> (yet) experiencing a problem by publishing an =all doesn't mean much if, for 
> example, virtually no receivers are looking for an ADSP record and/or virtually 
> no receivers are making handling decisions based on ADSP records.


+1

> 
> Before you report your personal experiences, could you include data about the 
> receivers, please?


Why is proper professional engineering simulation excluded?  Not 
everything needs to be put into production to have an engineering 
conclusion what is proper methodology.

--
HLS