On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Tony Hansen <t...@att.com> wrote: > But it breaks one of the constraints placed on the i= value, which is > not a good thing. Why do that when you can get the same functionality by > using the valid values of i...@good.largeisp.com, i...@bad.largeisp.com and > i...@suspect.largeisp.com?
That too is possible. The point about i= being a collective sum of multiple user reputations, in a large isp scenario, doesnt depend on this. But that constraint is not too relevant, given the assumption that i= can be anything at all and is mostly relevant to the entity that signs and transmits the email. -srs _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
