I think not. I think I'm trying to say that what you defined as minimally
useful isn't sufficently useful to be worth the effort of a working group.
I think the minimum needs to be higher.
I agree with that.
What I am attempting to say is that I do not believe there is any
sigificant value in signing some new, invisible e-mail identity. For it
to have value, it needs to relate to a current, visible identity.
It *can* have value even without being tied to an internal message header
because you can always use the identity (whatever it is) as a filter input.
I completely agree with Dave on this point. But this value is nowhere near
sufficient protection for a domain owner. DKIM without a required SSP is
almost totally ineffective in protecting the rights of a domain owner.
What I'd like to know is whether Dave's view has any support or not. There
are many people who haven't commented on this topic.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
<http://dkim.org>