On 2006-08-21 14:15, Dave Crocker wrote:
It is even more important that we carefully distinguish between internal
operational policies, versus the information that a signer must make public.
+1
[ . . . ]
If the signer wants to have assessment be based on different reputations, such
as for messages authored by different customers of the signer or messages
authored by different departments in the signer's organization, then the signer
needs to use different d= values.
[ . . . ]
In other words, the job of DKIM is to deliver a valid identity to an assessment
mechanism.
Makes sense to me, though I suspect we'll need to repeat this a few
times before everyone groks it.
How the assessment service decides to use different names is a matter that falls
under reputation and accreditation. My reading of the charter says that that is
out of scope.
+1
Keep it simple.
--
J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
Yahoo! Communications Platform Team
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html