>> There isn't. We host mail for numerous domains, but we're planning to >> sign all of it as d=assessment.aol.com for the reasons Suresh mentioned >> (same use policies, filtering, etc.). Plus, a single user identity in my >> system can have multiple email addresses associated with it, so it makes >> more sense (in my mind at least) to set [email protected] >> instead of [email protected]. For example, a single >> dial-up customer can have up to seven mailboxes at a time but there's >> still only one responsible identity for the account. I believe broadband >> access providers have similar setups. >> > > This looks just fine to me. By using the user_id, you're satisfying the > semantics of > > Identity of the user or agent (e.g., a mailing list manager) on > behalf of which this message is signed > > and still maintains the uniqueness of that identity. > > I don't think this is the same as what Suresh was describing, though. He > was talking about using assessment labels for the i= value, such as > [email protected], rather than a value directly linked to the > known user/agent. > > Tony Hansen > [email protected] >
And in all fairness to Suresh, I probably did initially describe the idea to him as using i= for the assessment at some meeting in the last year or so, but have since changed my mind on the implementation details. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
