On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:56:30AM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote: >The proposed errata use of the word opaque to describe the d= value, >in addition to the i= value offers _no_ additional clarity.
Given something like this: d=good.rep.example.net or d=bad.rep.example.net do not assume that those identifiers mean "good" and "bad". Good and bad could be the names of two different companies. A signer could sign like this instead: d=53302.rep.example.net or d=9999.rep.example.net and this would enforce to the verifier that no meaning should be placed on what d= contains. d= is just an identfier that is used to look up the public key and could further be used as a key into a reputation system. -- Jeff Macdonald jmacdon...@e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
