Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Jim Fenton wrote: >> Dave CROCKER wrote: >>> ps. That includes dropping the "ADSP is incompatible" note. >>> >> If you mean the note that I included in the alternative text that I >> posted, I disagree. Parent domain signing is a technique described in >> RFC 4871. If it can't be used with ADSP because ADSP compares against >> the d= value rather than the domain part of i=, then that limitation >> should be pointed out in an informative note so that domains don't get >> stung by setting up parent domain signing and then find that ADSP >> doesn't do what they expect. > > > First, this is one of the simplifications we get by the change that the > working > group agreed to, with the RFC4871 Update about to be formally approved, and > with > the use of SDID, rather than AUID, in ADSP: the issue of a "parent" > disappears. > All that is left is the more general question of deciding how to > distinguish > among outgoing mail streams with different SDID values. > > Second, either the d= matches the domain in the rfc5322.From field, or it > doesn't. There is no complexity or subtlety to the test, so there are no > "implications" that need to be pointed out.
So are you saying, this is the new problem (3rd party) that needs a solution? -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
