Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-00

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

[moving this from ietf-dkim to apps-discuss]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 3:12 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] FW: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-authres-vbr-00
> 
> >Comments welcome, even if it's just "I read this, looks good to me"
> >so that some support or consensus can be recorded.
> 
> I read it, it almost looks good to me.  A VBR-Info header can list
> multiple certifiers, so unless there's something I missed, the vbr
> clause in the A-R header should include the name of the certifier.
> I imagine that in a scoring system different certifiers would be
> weighted differently, e.g., a list of spamless signers vs. a list
> of signers that send a mix but it's not all spam.

The vision I have for A-R is that it provides results only and an expression of what was evaluated, but stops short of giving it more than that.  So in the case of VBR it would say "someone the border trusts vouched for domain example.com", meaning the "md=" is important but the "mv=" is not.

That said, I've got a new version already pending, thanks to previous feedback, that changes the tag set added from "header.vbr-info" to "header.md" and "header.mv".

Does that work for you?

-MSK