Ok. The key question there seems to me to be 'does the UAID namespace
represent actual identities'? For most of the use cases I can think of
for assessing the UAID, it doesn't really matter whether it matches the
from address or not.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.o
cussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can
come back to it later.
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:34 AM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: Adkins, Michael; DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-
mail system would want to follow the
Errata as currently written are when they have reason to believe that
the UAID is the responsible identity.
-Original Message-
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dcroc...@bbiw.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Adkins, Mi
on...@e-dialog.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:50 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Adkins, Michael; dcroc...@bbiw.net; DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:31:51PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>The few large cases are
>
>
It does.
-Original Message-
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:01 PM
To: Adkins, Michael
Cc: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
Adkins, Michael wrote:
> Your notes in 10 and 11 are correct in that UAID should
I don't think I've made any such specific reference, since I agree that
the examples you give are contrary to the definition in the spec.
It is already common practice for operators to segment their outbound
traffic to avoid filtering issues. I expect them to apply similar
segmentations with DKIM
