On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:08:00PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > Folks, > > I've heard a number of different groups say that they plan to make semantic > distinction based on selector. For example, they intend to send transaction > mail under one selector and marketing mail under another. Their intent is to > have reputation services distinguish between one domain+selector and another. > > I believe this defeats the purpose of the selector and would like to get some > working group discussion and consensus about this.
Someone said that protocol abuse, defined success. Was that you Dave? In any event, the question is, what can be done about it? If we can't stop it in the protocol, at best we can write unread admonishments. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
