Stephen Farrell wrote:
Siegel, Ellen wrote:
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of John Levine
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.
Sounds like a good approach to me.
Just in case: Please don't prepare a new ADSP draft right now.
+1.
But I will add that any "information" regarding how a message is
expected to be signed or authored, it does make sense it should be in
the ADSP record. This begins to move back semantics like we had with
SSP which is good.
I use three design criteria I try to use to keep sense of all this:
1) no signature
2) invalid 1st party signature
3) the presence of 3rd party signature
The 1st and 2nd are easy, and so is the 3rd one if the ADSP is neutral
on its signature.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html