>> The best I can suggest is something along the lines of noting that >> assessment-level heuristics can be aided by certain choices of signature d= >> names. And then specifying what they might be, so that both signers and >> verifiers know how to encourage success for the heuristics. > > But doesn't the proposed text do that? > > Perhaps a merge of that text and this paragraph would do nicely.
I have to agree with Dave. This is way outside anything that DKIM specifies, it's the "first party" vs. "third party" distinction that I hope we have buried for good. Although I understand the motivation, if we're serious that DKIM signatures mean what the mean, it needs to go. Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
