Isn't it much simpler, and entirely sufficient, to have ADSP use SDID (d=)?
I am not understanding the downside to the choice. The alternatives all seem significantly more complicated and probably problematic. d/ J.D. Falk wrote: > MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > >> I view introducing a new tag at this point as problematic. > > Agreed. > >> Using i= or even going to using d= does not require any changes to >> current DKIM signing implementations. Introducing a new tag means that >> implementers are at the mercy of the timeframes that vendors choose to >> change how they sign DKIM. >> >> As I have said before, I can personally accept using d= because of how >> we chose to implement DKIM signing for our domains. I lean towards i= >> for ADSP because I believe it gives others benefits. > > So then i= would be effectively meaningless to verifiers, EXCEPT when used > in conjunction with ADSP, where it needs to match the author (From:) address? > > Seems reasonable to me, assuming we're all agreed that i= is opaque to > verifiers in all other cases. > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
