Hector wrote: > The fallacy in the "common use case" opinion stated above is that it has > limited insight and is based on the idea that a most domains may wish to > be part of a 3rd party Bulk mailer system or will part of a prior 3rd > party agreement or have a inherent TOS with 3rd party signers.
That's not quite what we had in mind. As I see it, 3rd party signing is only acceptable when the domain owner wants to permit it -- so if there's no agreement, the entire discussion of 3rd party signing is irrelevant. This is more or less your argument, too, so we probably just need to tighten the wording of that paragraph so that it's clear that it means what we both want it to mean. I'm not cool with replacing an "out of scope" statement at the tail end of an appendix with normative demands of specific verifier behavior, however. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
