avoiding this problem is easy, the accreditation records should include
a fixed word identifier as a preamble (say "DNA"), so that it is clear
that
DNA,MARID,1,A
and
DNA,MX,1,A
I think that you are confusing the semantics with the mechanism. DNA provides
a
mechanism for reporting some information. The semantics exist outside the
mechanism.
1. The client-smtp reputation/accreditation assessment that is associated with
a
particular domain name exists in its own right, independent of the mechanism
used (eg, DNA) to report it.
2. A particular client choose to declare itself associated with that domain
name. CSA is one way to make that declaration.
You are suggesting that the assessment information be labeled according to the
mechanism used to communicate it. That's not a good idea.
The assessment does not depend on the reporting mechanism. The assessment
information certainly *does* need to be careful in the way it specifies the
identity and labeling what is being assessed, but it should not specify how it
is reported.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net