Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
This agrees with my understanding, too. The i= may have to be an
identity, but nothing says the identity has to be meaningful to anyone
other than the signer.
In which case either the errata doc or the -bis rfc has to introduce a
"MAY" for i= being an identity instead of tying the two together and
effectively excluding the most common uses to which i= will be put.
Interesting. The key point I'm hearing is that having i= represent the
identity
of an (individual) user makes it inappropriate to use for identifying a mail
stream, that is, aggregate traffic.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html