On May 6, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > If, indeed, a feature is unused or problematic, then how will > dropping it hurt adoption? A simpler specification typically aids > adoption, rather than hurting it. > > And just to keep things real, can you cite some examples of the > effect you are concerned about?
Dave, Deciding whether to place significant resources into services based upon DKIM can be stymied by those that don't understand how a feature _might_ be used productively once the services are in place. Take for example the redefinition of the i= value that just took place within the last errata. This represents a significant functional change with respect to information exchange. This change can and likely will impact both email annotation services, as well as reputation services. These services take time to develop. Removing "problematic" features this early IS the problem. The i= value is optional and is not required to match against any email-address. The i= value only adds information, provided of course the definition for this field and its exchange is not changed. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html