On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:40:18AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that
tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. Some
signers may use a different value, which would demonstrate the wisdom
of separating them.
Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
um, I read Jim's draft to use r= for "reputation" and not for ADSP. So
specify a new tag for ADSP.
--
Jeff Macdonald
jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html