Dave Crocker wrote:
That is fairly close to the second paragraph of section 1, although your version doesn't discuss locally maintained whitelists (arguably not a reputation information service) nor accreditation services, both of which also benefit from DKIM. My version doesn't re-emphasize that it is input to such a service, as your last sentence does. True, but I have been saying that this is a class of Bad Actor that DKIM does not address. I am beginning to see that it should say something about supporting other mechanisms against these bad actors, even though it doesn't itself solve the non-spoofing obnoxious sender (NSOS?) problem. -Jim |
_______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
