I think there will be cases where a signer chooses to make their UAID semantics known to assessors specifically for assessment purposes. How the signer might communicate that to the assessors is out of scope for the moment I think. I would assume that, for starters, the signers would approach individual assessors/mailbox providers. If it proved useful and was worth doing on a larger scale, then we could figure out a way to make the signer's preference automatically known to assessors.
Siegel, Ellen wrote: > >> A question regarding the notes in 10 and 11: >> >> Would it make more sense to suggest that the mail system make the UAID >> clear to the reader if its the identity whose reputation was used to >> deliver the message, and make the SDID clear to the reader otherwise? >> _______________________________________________ >> > > [> ] > Given that the semantics of the UAID are inherently opaque, how would you > suggest that the mail system make the assessment? I like the concept, but > don't see how it can be implemented given the defined syntax/semantics. > > Ellen > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
