On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:41:18PM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
So what matters is that we agree on what the ADSP information says and
means, and that we agree on the interpretation by a verifier of its
absence.
If ADSP assertions put constraints on DKIM use, especially
if those constraints end up affecting those who don't choose to
use ADSP, then it's a bit more important than that.
So essentially any spec that causes another DKIM record to be create to
solve interoperably problems should be viewed as a violation of DKIM
Base?
I'm thinking John L's use of i= as a cookie and ADSP. I'll note that
John's use of i= would be considered a violation too.
--
Jeff Macdonald
jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html