Re: [dkim-milter-discuss] The value of features within DKIM

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 19:01, Dave CROCKER <dh...@dc...> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I believe there was only one response to Murray's query.  His request was not
> from idle curiosity.
>
> There is a serious discussion underway, looking for DKIM features that are
> clearly essential and those that might not be.  This requires feedback from the
> folks using DKIM.  Like yourselves.
>
> Dkim-milter is a significant, free resource.  It really is not asking all that
> much of those benefiting from this free software that they (yoou) provide some
> feedback about the system is enables.
>
> Please reply to Murray's survey, indicating the features you rely on now.  Feel
> free also to indicate the ones you do not expect to ever use.

Ok:

> Some specific topics, if you need a starting place:
>
> In signatures:
>        x= (signature expiration)

Don't care - I don't (personally) see any need.  If I signed the email
to say I sent it, then I signed the email to say I sent it.

>        t= (signature timestamps)

Obviously useful ;)

>        l= (body lengths)

Potentially useful for mailing lists, but allows people to modify your
email later.  I'm all for dropping it.

>        i= (signing identity)

Don't understand what this is for

>        q= (query method)

Given that the only option is dns/txt there doesn't seem to be any point to it.

Part of the problem of lack of reponse may be that the DKIM site
doesn't lend itself to easily finding information.  I don't really
want to wade through hundreds of lines of RFC to understand what the
header options are ;)

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche