On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> >> For typical DKIM users though, commenting on an invalid field as >> "This >> is probably invalid, but there might be an experimental I-D that's >> using it, so maybe it's OK and receivers may or may not ignore it" is >> going to be far more confusing than "This is wrong, fix it." - as if >> they're using "r=" it's probably a typo or a misunderstanding, rather >> than intentional use of an experimental field. > > How about: "The following tags are non-standard and will likely be > ignored by most verifiers"? > > Some of Tony's examples such as "h=rsa-sha1" can certainly be > reported as "invalid" as they are standardized tags with illegal > values (i.e., the legal values are enumerated). > >> It might be interesting to have an alternate checker that tracks the >> additional fields being discussed in active I-Ds too, though. Is >> there >> a registry of experimental fields or list of I-Ds anywhere? > > Alas, no. And it would be difficult, I think, to try to corral > people into using one in general (though the audience is currently > pretty small so for now it's a practical idea).
Ah. If there's no registry of fields then there's nothing to say that a receiver isn't experimenting with an r= field that's completely different to the r= field that Tony is publishing. So it isn't safe to assume that a receiver that isn't using Tony's definition of r= will ignore his r= field, rather we're solidly into undefined behavior and something that is definitely an error in a production record (as opposed to a record used for pre-arranged testing with a specific receiver). Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
