On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > 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. > That seems aligned with Steve's point about DKIM's value coming (only?) when the d= value is not the same as the domain-name in the from: field. So according to you (and Steve?) the IETF should pass a normative requirement that all verified email be hired out to 3rd parties?! That strikes me as very anti-Internet.
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
