Eliot Lear wrote: > Jeff Macdonald wrote: >> The only thing that worries me is someone will tie their reputation >> system to the identity instead of the identifier. There is lots of >> advice for a company (an identity) to put different types of mail >> streams on different IPs. So logically one would use different DKIM >> identifiers to accomplish the same thing with DKIM. > > I wouldn't worry so much. For one thing, one cannot so easily > programmatically determine an identity. One can say that an identity > owns an identifier and perhaps can show some authoritative proof of > binding, but it's just plain difficult to do the reverse. And I say > this as someone who would like to, quite frankly. But this gets us > into Wendy Seltzer territory. Let's not go there.
+1 We should not let forward progress be halted by the possibility that someone might establish an entirely-internal-to-them policy that some of us might disagree with. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
