Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Mike Adkins had an interesting suggestion where he'd use d=aol.com to
sign outbound messages, and i=good(_at_)aol(_dot_)com, bad(_at_)aol(_dot_)com
and
suspect(_at_)aol(_dot_)com to denote various reputation scores that aol's
filters
assigned an outbound message.
This would allow aol to separate mail into different streams at their
end, and it'd allow receiving ISPs aware of this i= classification to
specialcase their filters to watch for i=bad or i=suspect email from
aol.
and why is that better, or worse, than d=good.aol.com, d=bad.aol.com,
d=suspect.aol.com?
note your reliance on "ISPs aware of this i= classification". It means that
the
mechanism won't scale, since we cannot assume that an arbitrary receiver will
be
aware of an arbitrary signer's scheme.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html