I don't think this idea meets the criteria that the i= value represents the
Identity of the user or agent (e.g., a mailing list manager) on
behalf of which this message is signed ...
My reading of this is that you can have a 1-to-1 mapping between the i=
value and the user/agent's identity, and you can have an N-to-1 mapping,
but you can't have a 1-to-N mapping. "good", "bad" and "suspect" do not
represent the identity.
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
suspect(_at_)aol(_dot_)com to denote various reputation scores that aol's
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
That's just one use case .. it is not just senders wanting a separate
reputation for all their clients so that some bad clients dont harm
the rest of their client base.
Even in the AOL scenario.. ADSP would be a nonstarter, thank god.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
The only one of interest I've seen suggested so far was if the i= value
was identical to the users' email addresses. But I could potentially see
other possible values for the 2nd area of interest. Another way to frame
the 2nd area of interest is: what type of namespace does the signer use,
if they care to identify it?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to