On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:07:22AM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly wrote: > > Remove x=
> IMO, there is a precise and purposeful rationale. I can come up with > atleast a dozen reasons or more why a signer may want to utilize an > expiration concept. As you say, and I agree, the benefits flow mostly, if not entirely, to the signer ... even though earlier discussions mooted benefits to the verifier. As I understand it, when x= expires the signer wants verifiers to treat the mail as unverified - in effect signers get to disclaim responsibility for that email after a certain point in time. This seems entirely at odds with DKIM which is about senders taking responsibility for an email for the benefit of the verifier. DKIM is not about senders taking responsibility for just 5 seconds or just 5 minutes or just 5 days. If a mail is signed and sent, a sender has no right, in my mind, to subsequently disclaim responsibility. It's their content; they wear the consequences forever. In short: x= gives senders wiggle room to expire responsibility - that seems at odds with our goals. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
