> Proposed text: > > <t>This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for > making different interpretations between the two identifiers and may > lead to interoperability problems. A signer could intend one to be > used for reputation, and have a non-reputation intent in setting the > value in the other. However the assessor might choose the wrong value > and produce an unintended (and inaccurate) reputation assessment.</t> > > <t>This update resolves that confusion. It defines additional, semantic > labels for the two values, clarifies their nature and specifies their > relationship. More specifically, it clarifies that the identifier > intended for reputation lookups (such as white lists) by the > assessor is the value of the "d=" tag. However, this does not > prohibit message filtering engines from using the "i=" tag, or any > other information in the message header, for filtering decisions. </t> > > <t>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for > reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is > intended. > </t>
WFM. Barry, as participant _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
