On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, McDowell, Brett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Based on that (rather precise) description, aren't ADSP's requirements a >> proper subset of the DKIM requirements? If so, I'm not sure I agree with >> "badly conflicting", but it does frame future discussion quite nicely. >> >> For example, if DKIM enables the identification of mail streams, isn't the >> one ADSP covers just a specific instance of a mail stream? >> > > BTW, one thing I think we can agree on and find value from in these > pre-deployment email discussions is terminology. I ran into a problem at the > last MAAWG during a panel discussion where my understanding of "3rd-party > signature" is what someone else meant by "2nd-party signature". What is the > real definitions of "1st-party", "2nd-party" and "3rd-party" signatures in > the context of DKIM and ADSP, i.e. in the context of i= and d= and from: > values?
I believe only the ADSP documents talk about 3rd party, and it is defined as d= not From Domain. These are 3rd party: DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com From: [email protected] DKIM-Sig: ... d=beer.com From: [email protected] I believe Patrick defined 2nd party to be: DKIM-Sig: ... d=dkim.bar.com From: [email protected] the maawg meeting was a first that I've heard that. First party is of course: DKIM-Sig: ... d=bar.com From: [email protected] BUT I really thinking making such distinctions is the wrong approach. It really doesn't matter what type of signature it is. I'd even advocate for a DKIM update that would cause all signatures to be 2nd or 3rd to enforce the point. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
