On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 04:57:17PM -0700, Douglas Otis allegedly wrote: > > On May 1, 2006, at 12:00 PM, John L wrote: > >> > >>The r= parameter would allow the signer to assist the recipient in > >>distinguishing between well vetted, and poorly vetted sources. > > > >Only if the recipient has some extra info about what meaning a > >particular signer gives to its r= codes, which in general will not > >be the case. Or if the recipient does know something extra about > >the signer, they can make any private arrangements they want, so > >there's no need to put anything in a standard. > > Okay, 0-9 may be far too many to arrive at a well understood
Colo[u]r me confused, but I don't see what this has to do with the base function of a domain claiming responsibility. Is this r= thing fundamental to that function or could it be developed as a separate exercise above and beyond the base? After all, the whole point of the tag=value syntax is so that additional functionality can be seamlessly added on. If r= is non-essential, then can we leave those discussions until after the base work is done, otherwise it's just hindering us. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
