It does seem, on the surface, functionally equivalent to some
statements that "i=" can be used to establish that its grandma sending
Then we desperately need to rewrite whatever part of 4871 leads anyone to
that erroneous conclusion. Anything that suggests in any way that i= has
any connection to grandma's address needs to be stamped out, and stamped
If you want a signature that identifies the individual user, there's
S/MIME and PGP.
Instead of i=?
Gee, how many ways are there to say that i= doesn't identify the user?
The i= field doesn't do that. DKIM doesn't identify individuals, only
In situations described where "author of the message"
= "user" = "grandma"?
We have two IETF standard signing schemes to identify individual mail
authors, S/MIME and PGP. Take your pick. But please note that that list
does not include DKIM.
Really, we understand that there are situations where it would be nice to
know the exact identity of the individual person pushing the Send button.
But DKIM doesn't do that.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to