Dave CROCKER wrote:
excellent. that's certainly a simple enough way to resolve the concern.
d/
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
I don't have a specific objection to the word reputation per se but
assessment is a more neutral term for this particular group so
s/reputation/assessment/g should work.
Meant to include this, for completeness:
Replacing 'reputation' with 'assessment', here's the latest version:
<t>This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
making different interpretations between the two identifiers and may
lead to interoperability problems. A signer could intend one to be
used for assessment, and have a non-reputation intent in setting the
value in the other. However the verifier might choose the wrong value
to deliver to the assessor, thereby producing an unintended (and
inaccurate) assessment.</t>
<t>This update resolves that confusion. It defines additional, semantic
labels for the two values, clarifies their nature and specifies their
relationship. More specifically, it clarifies that the identifier
intended for delivery to the assessor -- such as one that consults a
white list -- is the value of the "d=" tag. However, this does not
prohibit message filtering engines from using the "i=" tag, or any
other information in the message's header, for filtering decisions.
</t>
<t>For signers and verifiers that have been using the i= tag as the
primary value that is delivered to the assessor, a software change to
using the d= tag is intended.
</t>
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html