accreditation

[Michael Thomas <mike@xxxxxxxx>]

Ned Freed wrote:

[]

I agree with Ned's answers but...

> I note in passing that none of this has anything to do with accreditation
> system linkage. I support defining a linkage field for this purpose in the base
> specifications. The field's syntax should be that of a URL; defining its use
> should be out of scope for now.

I don't understand what this would achieve. The syntax is extensible
right now, so why specify something that doesn't have semantics? I
can see some real downsides though: everybody who wants accreditation
to exist (including moi) would find that defined-but-undefined tag
awfully tempting to put their own definition of what it means leading
to a lot of non-standardized use, not to mention the confusion of
whether DKIM actually does or doesn't provide that functionality.

I get the sense that a fair number of people think that if we don't
put hooks in now, the entire subject will be swept under the rug.
I just don't see it that way. If DKIM is successful, I think it will
make doing the next steps far, far easier.

		Mike