Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: Franck Martin
> Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 1:22 PM
> > To: John Levine
> > Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
> >
> > But creating a sub-domain, means that the from needs to match too,
> Why?  That's an ADSP thing, not a DKIM thing.
I think his goal is to have it be a 1st party signature (From and d=
match) even absent an ADSP assertion. I'm not sure I agree that this is
just "an ADSP thing, not a DKIM thing". We don't publish ADSP yet I have
had receivers tell me that our doing this is useful to them.

Mike

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html