I don't think this idea meets the criteria that the i= value represents the
Identity of the user or agent (e.g., a mailing list manager) on
behalf of which this message is signed ...
My reading of this is that you can have a 1-to-1 mapping between the i=
value and the user/agent's identity, and you can have an N-to-1 mapping,
but you can't have a 1-to-N mapping. "good", "bad" and "suspect" do not
represent the identity.
Tony Hansen
[email protected]
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Mike Adkins had an interesting suggestion where he'd use d=aol.com to
> sign outbound messages, and [email protected], [email protected] and
> [email protected] to denote various reputation scores that aol's filters
> assigned an outbound message.
>
> This would allow aol to separate mail into different streams at their
> end, and it'd allow receiving ISPs aware of this i= classification to
> specialcase their filters to watch for i=bad or i=suspect email from
> aol.
>
> That's just one use case .. it is not just senders wanting a separate
> reputation for all their clients so that some bad clients dont harm
> the rest of their client base.
>
> Even in the AOL scenario.. ADSP would be a nonstarter, thank god.
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The only one of interest I've seen suggested so far was if the i= value
>> was identical to the users' email addresses. But I could potentially see
>> other possible values for the 2nd area of interest. Another way to frame
>> the 2nd area of interest is: what type of namespace does the signer use,
>> if they care to identify it?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
