[ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text for rfc4871-errata
wietse at porcupine.org
Fri Jun 12 09:56:51 PDT 2009
> Proposed text:
> <t>This currently leaves signers and assessors with the potential for
> making different interpretations between the two identifiers and may
> lead to interoperability problems. A signer could intend one to be
> used for reputation, and have a non-reputation intent in setting the
> value in the other. However the assessor might choose the wrong value
> and produce an unintended (and inaccurate) reputation assessment.</t>
> <t>This update resolves that confusion. It defines additional, semantic
> labels for the two values, clarifies their nature and specifies their
> relationship. More specifically, it clarifies that the identifier
> intended for reputation lookups (such as white lists) by the
> assessor is the value of the "d=" tag. However, this does not
> prohibit message filtering engines from using the "i=" tag, or any
> other information in the message header, for filtering decisions. </t>
> <t>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for
> reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is intended.
This clarifies what is the primary identifier that signers
intend to send to assessors.
If it helps to avoid stepping on sensitive toes, you could drop
the last sentence, but I can live with it.
More information about the ietf-dkim