On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > The discussion seems to be straying beyond certain useful > boundaries... as Stephen says, let's keep it within those. So, in > particular, with my "participant" hat on: > > It seems to me that the relevant point isn't whether you do or don't > like ADSP and whether you will or won't deploy it... but, rather, that > we agree on the details of it. If you're a signer and you don't like > ADSP, you won't publish ADSP information. If you're a verifier and > you don't like ADSP, you won't retrieve ADSP information. > > So what matters is that we agree on what the ADSP information says and > means, and that we agree on the interpretation by a verifier of its > absence.
If ADSP assertions put constraints on DKIM use, especially if those constraints end up affecting those who don't choose to use ADSP, then it's a bit more important than that. (I'm already seeing people who can't use DKIM appropriately because they're using DKIM signing engines that were were written with one limited use case in mind). I don't know if that is the case. Does anyone else? Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
