Re: r= for instilling good domain-name practices

> It is however vital that some standardize convention for expressing this
> information be provided by the DKIM mechanism, or there is a real
> possibility that DKIM will make the situation worse when signing domains
> resort to using more domain names to distinguish between differ levels
> of vetted sources.  This strategy would greatly weaken domain-name
> recognition, and much of the value that could be derived by
> incorporating DKIM signing.

Since we don't know what the arguments to r= mean, I don't understand why 
r=xxx is better than xxx._domainkeys.foo.org, in both cases with an xxx 
that means nothing unless you happen to have a side agreement with the 
sender.

More to the point, systems to evaluate the reputation of a sender or 
signer are utterly, completely out of scope for the DKIM project.  As we 
keep reminding ourselves, a valid signature from foo.org means no more or 
less than "you can blame foo.org if you don't like this."

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.