Adkins, Michael wrote: > The exact manner in which they should do that is what we need to agree > on. > > If I choose to segment my signing based on my own assessment of the > user, as I do now with outbound ip addresses, then I would probably make > that a subdomain in d= (d=assessment.example.com). If I also choose to > specify an i= value, then that segmentation will spill over giving us > something like [email protected].
The challenge, here, is not to constrain the choices too far. Different senders/signers do, and will, have different schemes. The spec needs to support them all, in a way that is compatible and interoperable. Typically, that sort of exercise reduces down to standardizing where the value occurs, but has only a modest limitation on the schemes for generating the value, in order to support many different schemes. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
