>On 3/28/2011 11:27 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >>> 1. "authors and their organizations" could be misinterpreted ...
I'm with Dave. It looks clear ro me that it's a list of examples. > "The Signer MAY choose to use the same namespace for its AUIDs as its >users' email addresses or MAY choose other means of representing its users. >However, the signer SHOULD use the same AUID for each message intended to be >evaluated as being within the same sphere of responsibility, if it wishes to >offer receivers the option of using the AUID as a stable identifier that is >finer grained than the SDID." > >I suggest that the first sentence change MAY to "might" in order to make it >non-normative. > >I further suggest removing the second sentence "However...". It is giving >(normative) usage guidance for something that it has already made out of scope. I'd also take out the INFORMATIVE NOTE. It's an opaque token, so a signer can do anything with the mailbox part of that token that it wants. With a d=example.com, you could equally well use [email protected] or [email protected]. They're different names, but receivers can infer equally little from each of them. >The closest I can come to what you describe in Section 6.3 is: > > "If the SDID is not the same as the address in the From: header >field, the mail system SHOULD take pains to ensure that the actual >SDID is clear to the reader." Good lord, no. My users don't see SDIDs or any other part of a DKIM signature. That goes in the same bit bucket with the advice to display the signed and unsigned parts of the message in different colors. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
