Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-23 Thread John Levine
>It would be very useful. Think > >d=bigmarketingcompany.com >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >d=bigmarketingcompany.com >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Useful to whom? I have little interest as a mail receiver sorting out an ESP's different campaigns, and I suspect I'm not alone. (This was the same fallacy that was beh

Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-23 Thread Jim Fenton
Charles Lindsey wrote: > But, to go further, if the signer goes to the trouble of including an > "i=" (which he is not obliged to do), then surely recipients are > entitled to assume he did so for some good reason. So if he said > i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender can be expected

Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

2007-10-23 Thread Jeff Macdonald
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:16:52PM -0700, Mark Delany wrote: > On Oct 22, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Jon Callas wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >>> So if he said i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender >>> can be expected to be from that subdomain; and if he said