On 5/11/20 10:30 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/11/2020 10:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> The question is, what responsibility is being claimed?
>
>> Tagging keys with aim= would allow senders to choose an appropriate
>> selector
>> under different circumstances.
>
>
> If signers want
Trying to follow this thread...
I am unclear as to what problem this (aim=) is trying to solve... or is
this only to add a layer of (potentially ignored) definitions?
Regards,
Damon
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:30 AM Dave Crocker
On 5/11/2020 10:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The question is, what responsibility is being claimed?
Tagging keys with aim= would allow senders to choose an appropriate selector
under different circumstances.
If signers want to have a standardized means of indicating the
Hi all,
consider the famous incipit:
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or
organization to claim some responsibility for a message by
associating a domain name [RFC1034] with the message [RFC5322], which
they are authorized to use.
The question is, what
