On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
6.3 paragraph 5 has changed "signing identity" to SDID. The signing
identity really corresponds to the AUID. As currently worded, the mail
system is advised to take pains to ensure that the SDID is displayed for
a message signed on behalf of a subdomain; this isn't necessary. Given
the WG's past consensus to ignore the local part of the AUID, I suggest
the following wording for the last sentence of the paragraph: "If the
domain of the AUID is not the same as domain of the address in the From:
header field, the mail system SHOULD take pains to ensure that the
actual AUID domain is clear to the reader."
I may be alone in this thinking, but I think SDID/AUID should be
treated like a license id or social security number. It isn't really
meant for human consumption. End users are not going to be able to
make head or tails of an AUID or SDID. I think that last sentence
should be left out. There probably should be a MUA considerations doc
instead.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html