On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:31:51PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >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.
ah, I think I understand now. This is simply a mechanism to limit the amount of potential i= values. If d= is in a some sort of list, then i= would be included the reputation model. I'd still think even given that model, you'd let the actions of the i= determine the trustworthness of the steam independent of what the owner of d= claims. -- Jeff Macdonald [email protected] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
