Subject: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: the new handling tag

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:03:30 -0700

I think I'm probably echoing Arvel's message, but I wanted to get these
issue tracked (Eliot has agreed to help here again... thanks Eliot!).

I think that the new handling tag is probably not needed. Certainly it
gives the possibility to some silly states like all/drop and some 
questionable
states like strict/process. To my mind, if we're going to say anything about
what a receiver should do (which I think is controversial in and of itself),
it should perhaps be a non-normative discussion in "All" and "strict".
I really don't like the idea of making this normative as it is the 
heuristics
in spam filters ultimately made the decision about the disposition, and
it's their neck on the line with false positives, etc. Telling them they are
"wrong" to not obey what the sender says is almost certainly going to
be ignored if that causes those filters to produce incorrect results.

       Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html