[ietf-dkim] Resigner Support of RFC 5617 (ADSP)
gmail.sant9442 at winserver.com
Sun Oct 11 13:15:31 PDT 2009
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
More information about the ietf-dkim