On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:03 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
So any use case that uses a list (private or public) of domains to
apply the algorithm to is probably out of scope for ADSP.
And this is the reason I like to say that ADSP is the public
mechanism for achieving what is currently being performed through
private agreements.
Right! And private agreements can only scale so far.
The use case for ADSP "discardable" at a d= level is clear, and well
understood. Other possible ADSP uses are much more complex, which
is (IIRC) why the WG consensus was to leave 'em out for now. But,
that out-of-scope complexity doesn't remove the need for the simple
case.
ADSP "discardable" is not well defined when there is an expectation
that compliance assessments ignore the i= value. For this, the
following is needed.
CHANGE:
An "Author Signature" is any Valid Signature where the identity of the
user or agent on behalf of which the message is signed (listed in the
"i=" tag or its default value from the "d=" tag) matches an Author
Address in the message. When the identity of the user or agent
includes a Local-part, the identities match if the Local-parts are the
same string, and the domains are the same string.
TO:
An "Author Signature" is any Valid Signature per section 3.2, where an
Author Address domain is within the signature's "d=" tag and value
domain.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html