My draft is expired, and I'm not particularly passionate about this so it's probably best if you do your own draft. I can send you the XML for my draft as a starting point if you want; feel free to use any of it that you want.
-Jim On 4/1/11 4:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Yes, could be good to do it as a separate extension, I thought also about > specifying an X-Header that would be signed by DKIM. > > Another way is to have a dkim tag that specify the header that indicates the > stream classification > > Many ways to kill the same bird. > > As for the stream name, I think giving a few codified ones, would help the > receiver in making decision, but if sender wants to use his own, then be free > to do so. > > Should we resurrect your draft, or go another way? Which way you want to go? > (How does it work in IETF?) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Fenton"<fen...@cisco.com> > To: "Franck Martin"<fra...@genius.com> > Cc: "Rolf E. Sonneveld"<r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl>, "IETF DKIM > WG"<ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org> > Sent: Saturday, 2 April, 2011 9:33:10 AM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) > > I'm told that adding something like this to 4871bis would require that > it go around again at Proposed Standard, rather than progress to Draft > Standard. > > It might be possible as a separate extension to DKIM, however. I have > an expired draft along these lines, > draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint-00. But it didn't include the > specific stream names. > > -Jim > > On 4/1/11 2:04 PM, Franck Martin wrote: >> I would suggest we deprecate i= and add st= (if not already used) that would >> let the sender specify a stream category. It would be limited to say 20 (or >> so) chars and we could specify a set of standard words (but not limited to). >> I'm thinking of things like transactional, marketing, password-reminder, >> sub-confirmation, billing, corporate, personal,... >> >> It would be left to the receiver to use them or not of course. >> >> I understand some of these words could be abused, but then the receiver >> could build a confidence factor in domain/stream association, etc... >> >> With IPv6 we may loose IP reputation, this is a way to bring it back within >> DKIM. >> >> PS: http://postmaster.facebook.com/outbound gives a good idea of streams in >> IPv4 world with DKIM equivalent, but they may be about the only ones to do >> that with DKIM. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld"<r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl> >> To: "Franck Martin"<fra...@genius.com> >> Cc: "Jim Fenton"<fen...@cisco.com>, "IETF DKIM WG"<ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org> >> Sent: Saturday, 2 April, 2011 8:14:45 AM >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) >> >> On 4/1/11 1:31 AM, Franck Martin wrote: >>> I had the feeling that Y! was using the local part of i= to do >>> differentiation in reputation. ie various streams within the same domain. >>> >>> I know the spec intent recommends, different domains for different streams, >>> but then.... >>> >>> Intuition would tell me, that few people are willing (or understand) to >>> have different domains for different streams. >> +1. And as DKIM d= information already is shown to end users by some UA >> implementations (e.g. Gmail shows 'this message was signed by<domain>, >> when clicking on details) the need/advise to use different domains for >> different streams conflicts with the threat of phishers registering >> look-alike domains. >> >> /rolf >> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
