Dave says... > 2. d= is sufficient for ADSP's stated goal. > > 3. The current ADSP re-defines i= semantics. While this is theoretically > legal, it is neither necessary nor useful. So the important question is not > about legality, but about need. ADSP's use of i= makes the meaning of DKIM > constructs more complicated and contingent. As a specific example, why should > ADSP use require Levine to alter his signing practices, given that they are > entirely legal with respect to DKIM signing?
I'll note that Jim posted a draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint to float the concept that this sort of thing can be done with another tag that doesn't try to overload the meaning of an existing one. I'll note that the same sort of thing can be used if we want to narrow the scope of ADSP tighter than just the domain. I'll also note that such a thing could be done in the base ADSP... or in an extension to ADSP that's written later. I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. Some signers may use a different value, which would demonstrate the wisdom of separating them. Barry _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
