I thought it was clear enough already, but perhaps not. I have no objection to adding more non-normative text if it helps people understand things better. And this looks like good text; thanks!
-Jim Arvel Hathcock wrote: > Hi all! > > I can easily see how the new "handling" tag might be perceived as > backward progress on what's been an important theme for a while: the > notion that SSP should not dictate receiver action. Personally, I > think we've become a bit too sensitive on that front. Regardless, > some text at the start of the handling= section might serve to shorten > the microphone line at the next IETF - yeah right :P > > How about this: > > handling= Non-compliant message handling request (plain-text; > OPTIONAL). > > NON-NORMATIVE EXPLANATION: Sender Signing Practices is not > attempting to control or determine what recipients do with the email > messages they receive. However, Sender Signing Practices is attempting > to provide receivers with information from domain owners about what > their wishes are with respect to messages purportedly sent by them. > With this information in hand it is believed that receivers will be > better equipped to make the decisions that seem best to them while at > the same time allowing senders to offer input into that decision > making process. The "handling" tag is designed to offer input from > senders and is not intended to rigidly control receiver behavior. > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
