On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:41:18PM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: >On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> So what matters is that we agree on what the ADSP information says and >> means, and that we agree on the interpretation by a verifier of its >> absence. > >If ADSP assertions put constraints on DKIM use, especially >if those constraints end up affecting those who don't choose to >use ADSP, then it's a bit more important than that.
So essentially any spec that causes another DKIM record to be create to solve interoperably problems should be viewed as a violation of DKIM Base? I'm thinking John L's use of i= as a cookie and ADSP. I'll note that John's use of i= would be considered a violation too. -- Jeff Macdonald [email protected] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
