On October 12, 2005 at 08:23, Ned Freed wrote: > > How about something along these lines instead: > > > "The working group recognizes that a significant amount of > > infrastructure and deployed software already compatible > > with the input specifications currently exists. The working > > group will therefore make every reasonable effort to refrain > > from introducing incompatible change." > > I like it.
This can open up a political can of worms. I.e. Some parties may continue to push the adoption of DKIM, as it is defined now, to make it more difficult to make any changes despite any flaws DKIM may have. It is interesting that something like the above will be adopted when a clear threat analysis has not been provided (although Jim's document is a good start), debates raised about what the scope of DKIM should be, and the existence of known problems with the draft specifications. --ewh _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
