On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:31:51PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The few large cases are
1. Exceptions to the general rule
2. Useful only when backed with some out of band discussion about
these .. I trust you to know that when you sign email as good (or bad)
it probably is that . but how much would I trust other providers? Or
suppose a sender signs his mail streams as "transactional", "coi",
"soi", it entirely depends on how much I trust their assessment, and
in some cases whether the sender is actually emitting "coreg",
"leads", "harvested"
That kind of corner case often involves a judgement call on the part
of the admin, and a shared understanding of the i= notation, and of
the underlying reputation model.
ah, I think I understand now. This is simply a mechanism to limit the
amount of potential i= values. If d= is in a some sort of list, then
i= would be included the reputation model.
I'd still think even given that model, you'd let the actions of the i=
determine the trustworthness of the steam independent of what the owner
of d= claims.
--
Jeff Macdonald
jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html