----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm sorry, just saying that the protocol is for "transport time" is not
> going to help developers, and is likely to lead to the
> inconsistencies and incompatibility that you are trying to get
> rid of. x= leaves it as a decision of the signer to determine
> what it wants. Letting a receiver just pick a number out of
> thin air is definitely not what we want -- especially when
? some dumb receivers would find it oh-so-suspicious
> that mail didn't get to them in the normal 20 minutes and declare the
> signature dead.
The x=tag is the less of DKIM worries. See the t=y tag:
// Local Policy:
// - Watch for Perpetual Testing (t=y) Abusers
// - 6 months Default
if (IsTesting() && TestingDays() > LocalPolicy.MaxTestingDays) {
WasteBasket()
return 551;
}
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
