Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Sensitivity surrounding the "handling" tag

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:42:52 -0800

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