On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 04:57:17PM -0700, Douglas Otis allegedly wrote:
On May 1, 2006, at 12:00 PM, John L wrote:
The r= parameter would allow the signer to assist the recipient in
distinguishing between well vetted, and poorly vetted sources.
Only if the recipient has some extra info about what meaning a
particular signer gives to its r= codes, which in general will not
be the case. Or if the recipient does know something extra about
the signer, they can make any private arrangements they want, so
there's no need to put anything in a standard.
Okay, 0-9 may be far too many to arrive at a well understood
Colo[u]r me confused, but I don't see what this has to do with the
base function of a domain claiming responsibility. Is this r= thing
fundamental to that function or could it be developed as a separate
exercise above and beyond the base? After all, the whole point of the
tag=value syntax is so that additional functionality can be seamlessly
added on.
If r= is non-essential, then can we leave those discussions until
after the base work is done, otherwise it's just hindering us.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html