Eliot Lear wrote: > On 3/25/09 10:28 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> The reason for saying DKIM, here, was to make sure the reader knows >> it's ok for other DKIM-Sig values to be delivered. Without the DKIM >> reference, the sentence would seem to be so broad as to have truly >> nothing to do with DKIM. > > My concern is this: what do identity assessors use today? An IP > address. They might want that tidbid of information as well. How, > then, not to exclude it?
+1 Why can't this "sentence" reflect the reality that the DKIM parameters or results to be pass to assessors is going to be function of the assessors themselves? The model must be able to make available all 5321/5322 process variables. What is passed or used by assessors will depend on what we are talking about. -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
