The few large cases are
1. Exceptions to the general rule
2. Useful only when backed with some out of band discussion about
these .. I trust you to know that when you sign email as good (or bad)
it probably is that . but how much would I trust other providers? Or
suppose a sender signs his mail streams as "transactional", "coi",
"soi", it entirely depends on how much I trust their assessment, and
in some cases whether the sender is actually emitting "coreg",
"leads", "harvested"
That kind of corner case often involves a judgement call on the part
of the admin, and a shared understanding of the i= notation, and of
the underlying reputation model.
--srs
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Adkins, Michael
<michael(_dot_)adkins(_at_)corp(_dot_)aol(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yes, we are in agreement about opacity. I would even agree about the
'often irrelevant' part. It's the few large cases where it's a good
solution that I would like to make sure we can still use it.
And I didn't really mean for my comment on the errata to turn into a
discussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can
come back to it later.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html