Could have sworn we were talking about formal standards and what
works for them, rather than what kinds of informal heuristics people
use. Please cite a standard that has that specifies the kind of
trust ambiguity you are promoting.
RFC 2822, section 3.6.7.
Given that Received fields are very poor for sequential tracing, are
often highly ambiguous, and are even used for spoofing, I'm not sure why
you are citing an example that demonstrates my concern.
Just because a protocol provides information doesn't mean
that we have to specify *every* possible outcome of a service.
So I guess it's a good thing that that's not what I said.
d/
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org