Dave CROCKER:
> 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>
+0.99
This clarifies what is the primary identifier that signers
intend to send to assessors.
If it helps to avoid stepping on sensitive toes, you could drop
the last sentence, but I can live with it.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
