Given that we have zero track record with this, quite a number of reasonable combinatorial uses, and a changing sense of the trust-overlay space for email transit, I suspect we should all be cautious about making any guesses of what will be "interesting"...
d/ Wietse Venema wrote: > Frank Ellermann: >> Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> "third-party" can be confusing. >> Later in the draft and after posting the issue I saw >> "non-author". That's also fine, but the interesting >> case isn't an "originating operator" (that is still >> end-to-end), but signatures by mediators. > > And how would receivers tell the difference between these scenarios? > > My position is don't assign different semantics to scenarios that > are indistinguishable to receivers. > > Wietse > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
