The few large cases are 1. Exceptions to the general rule
2. Useful only when backed with some out of band discussion about these .. I trust you to know that when you sign email as good (or bad) it probably is that . but how much would I trust other providers? Or suppose a sender signs his mail streams as "transactional", "coi", "soi", it entirely depends on how much I trust their assessment, and in some cases whether the sender is actually emitting "coreg", "leads", "harvested" That kind of corner case often involves a judgement call on the part of the admin, and a shared understanding of the i= notation, and of the underlying reputation model. --srs On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Adkins, Michael <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, we are in agreement about opacity. I would even agree about the > 'often irrelevant' part. It's the few large cases where it's a good > solution that I would like to make sure we can still use it. > > And I didn't really mean for my comment on the errata to turn into a > discussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can > come back to it later. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
