Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Siegel, Ellen wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> On Behalf Of John Levine >>> >>> Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest, >>> I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag. >>> >> Sounds like a good approach to me. > > Just in case: Please don't prepare a new ADSP draft right now.
+1. But I will add that any "information" regarding how a message is expected to be signed or authored, it does make sense it should be in the ADSP record. This begins to move back semantics like we had with SSP which is good. I use three design criteria I try to use to keep sense of all this: 1) no signature 2) invalid 1st party signature 3) the presence of 3rd party signature The 1st and 2nd are easy, and so is the 3rd one if the ADSP is neutral on its signature. -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
