The best I can suggest is something along the lines of noting that
assessment-level heuristics can be aided by certain choices of signature d=
names. And then specifying what they might be, so that both signers and
verifiers know how to encourage success for the heuristics.
But doesn't the proposed text do that?
Perhaps a merge of that text and this paragraph would do nicely.
I have to agree with Dave. This is way outside anything that DKIM
specifies, it's the "first party" vs. "third party" distinction that I
hope we have buried for good.
Although I understand the motivation, if we're serious that DKIM
signatures mean what the mean, it needs to go.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html