Eliot Lear wrote:
On 3/25/09 10:28 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The reason for saying DKIM, here, was to make sure the reader knows
it's ok for other DKIM-Sig values to be delivered. Without the DKIM
reference, the sentence would seem to be so broad as to have truly
nothing to do with DKIM.
My concern is this: what do identity assessors use today? An IP
address. They might want that tidbid of information as well. How,
then, not to exclude it?
+1
Why can't this "sentence" reflect the reality that the DKIM parameters
or results to be pass to assessors is going to be function of the
assessors themselves?
The model must be able to make available all 5321/5322 process
variables. What is passed or used by assessors will depend on what we
are talking about.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html