> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> The utility of "I sign some" is not in the policy itself, but in the > *discovery* > part of the protocol: when you find _any_ valid record, you > know that you can stop looking for one. Depending on the > tree walking aspects of the discovery mechanism, this could > be a useful thing. Maybe it would be better to do this by not > expressing any policy/practice in the otherwise valid to get > this functionality so as not to confuse the issue with the > semantics of "I sign some" which doesn't seem to mean much. > > I have no idea what use "I sign no mail" has. I suggest that we replace 'I sign no mail' and 'I sign some mail' with 'Undefined'. A policy mechanism with two values is going to be much easier to administer than one with fve degrees of freedom. One reason I want to insist on the binary choice here is that I want to encourage publication of the only policy that is useful to a receiver. If you allow for a weasel route you are going to have a hard time getting anyone to go all the way. Its like the problem we have with Draft standard and Standard here in the IETF. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
