Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
By its nature, that implies a lookup for a signed message, including
one that validates. Bad idea.
This mechanism belongs within the key. Placing this in the key allows
assertions without causing added transactions.
Either that, or a pointer with the key to the additional information,
that is only present if the sender has a policy of the nature where a
lookup for signed messages is warranted. If you posit that the general
case is to *not* have such policies, then a pointer would do fine. If
you posit that the general case *is* to have such policies, then either
placing it in the key or not doing it at all would be preferable.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
PS. My brain is fuzzy from too much traveling and too little sleep.
Hopefully the above makes sense. :-)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html