On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 09:35:11 PM John Levine wrote: > >This is generally true, but think send a feedback report on SPF Pass > >without a valid DKIM signature could be useful to answer the question > >"Let me know about stuff coming out of my IP space that isn't DKIM > >signed". This is a real question I know is getting asked. It might be > >useful to have a standardized way to ask and answer it. > > But how often is it asked outside the context of setting up an FBL? > If you're already making private arrangements between the sender > and the recipient, you can handle the policy stuff out of line. > > The reason to put it in the protocol is to say "Hey, world! I want you > to run this complex state machine to decide when to send me stuff that > I might or might not accept!" That doesn't seem very useful to me.
I'd say that's A reason. The entire MARF WG is somewhat vulnerable to these same sentiments. If such arrangements are a set once and forget it setup then perhaps. OTOH, if these are things that are subject to change (perhaps, for example, reporting requirements are different during a particular system upgrade rollout) then there is utility is having a standardized set of knobs to turn so that software support adjustments without a lot of customization or cost. We absolutely can save this argument for later, so we probably should. We may collectively know more by then. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
