At 09:10 24-10-2008, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
An issue has been raised regarding the name of the proposed header
field. Some of the methods supported by the draft are specifically
message authorization and not authentication (e.g. SPF, Sender-ID) and
there's a concern that this might mislead some consumers of the header
field's contents. Do others concur, or is it not something about which
to be concerned?
This header is used to convey results of DomainKeys, DKIM, SPF and
Sender-ID evaluation. We could argue about whether it's about
authentication or authorization. If it is being renamed to
"Auth-Results", then let the "Auth-Results" stand for "conveying
results" and not as a determination about the methods.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html