On 9/16/2010 8:31 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
You are absolutely correct Dave. My intent was to communicate the
combination of DKIM and ADSP (or ADSP layered on top of DKIM if you
will).
Right. And I was pretty sure that was your intent. (In fact I singled our
your
note because I was confident that it would be possible to keep the focus on the
terminology usage and not worry about mixing it with a misunderstanding of the
distinction between DKIM and ADSP...)
The problem is that there is a general perception that DKIM cares about the
"type" of the signature. Linking DKIM directly to a discussion about the
'party' of the signature reinforces that misunderstanding.
As many of you know, I've recently added a little audience-participation test
to
my presentations about DKIM. Almost everyone who answers the question "What
does
DKIM do" says that it is about verifying the author or the sender. Formally,
it
does neither.
I strongly suggest that when someone is talking about ADSP, they need to say
ADSP.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html