On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 07:44 -0400, Hector Santos wrote: > In summary, the straw poll gave us a status quo, but now have a proposal to > water it down. When you use SHOULD, per RFC 2119, then you must have > "carefully weighted" reason to choose to ignore the domain telling you to > reject or invalid a signature.
The current draft already offers too many options with respect to rejection. If there is a reason to reject the message or the signature, the desire would be to have all MTAs make the same choice. Every difference between MTAs may create a problem down-stream. My "tongue- in-cheek" rewording of t= text was to draw attention to that issue. Choices for the l=, and d= != i= should also be changed to a SHOULD reject. Adding x= to this list of do-what-you-want furthers these types of problems. Deferred issues within the AU might be a notable exception, but how secure are these internal MTAs? -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
