>> But more to the point, it seems that this isn't a specific "we're
>> testing our system" issue, but a separate issue related to reputation:
>> "Do not use signatures made with this key as input to your evaluation
>> of our reputation." It would seem best to propose a new tag, in a
>> DKIM extension, for that purpose, rather than re-using and overloading
>> t=.
>
> Since RFC6376 ascribes almost no real meaning to "t=", what's the harm with
> revising its definition, perhaps with an "Updates" draft?
What I should have said was "overloading t=y", which seems like what
you're proposing... and RFC 6376 absolutely ascribes a meaning to t=y:
it indicates some sort of testing mode.
If you want to do this, you need a new flag ("t=r", or some such) or a
new tag, and it should be specifically aimed at reputation, not at any
sort of testing mode. I don't think "Updates 6376" is needed nor
appropriate; it's a straight extension.
That said, I'm inclined to agree with Mike T that input from the
reputation target is suspicious, so it's not clear how much value it
will have nor whether it might be gamed (by the reputation target) or
hacked (by someone wanting to hurt the target's reputation).
Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
