[ietf-dkim] Refocusing on the re-charter
barryleiba.mailing.lists at gmail.com
Sun Oct 18 14:58:22 PDT 2009
> If receivers are afraid senders will follow the Thomas interpretation,
> and say "dkim=all" despite posting to mailing lists that break their
> signatures, they will not act on "dkim=all".
> If senders are afraid receivers will follow the Levine interpretation,
> rejecting broken signatures at CR LF '.' CR LF without first whitelisting
> mailing list traffic, they will not post "dkim=all".
My point, Michael, is that it doesn't matter what we "decide" in the
working group. As John pointed out, what's relevant is not that he
and Mike Thomas disagree about what we intended with ADSP or whether
we think it's useful. What's relevant is how it will actually be
deployed. No amount of arguing one way or the other will tell us
that. We've written our specifications and our deployment guides, and
now we have to wait and see what happens in the wild.
It isn't a question of choosing one side or the other. It's a
question of moving the discussion to things that will matter, and that
will let the working group make progress.
More information about the ietf-dkim