Dave CROCKER wrote: > John Levine wrote: > >> You're both right. The open issue in ADSP at this point is whether to >> overload i= to attempt to add per-address reputation, or strip out the >> cruft so it really does say this domain signs all mail. >> > > > wouldn't that mean defining ADSP in terms of d=, rather than i=? > > it would also remove the confusion about granularity. >
That's only one way to remove some of the overloading of i=; it doesn't follow that ADSP needs to change. The implication here seems to be that it's ADSP that is doing the overloading. There has been a lot of (in many cases speculative) discussion about how the i= value could be used, but the ADSP specification is the only place where an application for i= is actually described (except possibly in Doug Otis's drafts). -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
