Given that we have zero track record with this, quite a number of reasonable
combinatorial uses, and a changing sense of the trust-overlay space for email
transit, I suspect we should all be cautious about making any guesses of what
will be "interesting"...
d/
Wietse Venema wrote:
Frank Ellermann:
Dave Crocker wrote:
"third-party" can be confusing.
Later in the draft and after posting the issue I saw
"non-author". That's also fine, but the interesting
case isn't an "originating operator" (that is still
end-to-end), but signatures by mediators.
And how would receivers tell the difference between these scenarios?
My position is don't assign different semantics to scenarios that
are indistinguishable to receivers.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html