Re: accreditation

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > I don't understand what this would achieve. The syntax is 
> > extensible right now, so why specify something that doesn't 
> > have semantics?
>
>
> The semantics are already defined in the X.509v3 and PKIX
> specifications. 

I'm sorry, but the semantics of what a DKIM receiver would
do with it are not. I have no clue as to what it would mean.

                Mike