On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 07:53 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > WRT your point, I agree. Perhaps we need to add another bit along the > lines of, "If an email is deferred based on lack of response to the > query for the public key, the verifier SHOULD NOT indefinitely defer > the message. While messages SHOULD be deferred for temporary DNS > issues, lack of response to a query for a public key alone SHOULD NOT > result in messages being permanently rejected."
Deferred handling allows recovery from equipment faults which may take hours or days. Holding state for such situations could create a sizable overhead. Unless there is a reason to believe there may be some issue at the receiver, continued deferral seems appropriate. Deferring before attempting to utilize an alternative RR type is a separate issue. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
