On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Douglas Otis
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
There will be work involved when dealing with opaque i= values when
assessing reputations. Any amount of consolidation of this
information will
induce a higher degree of collateral blocking. It seems best to
keep this
an opaque value that the sender fully controls.
Those opaque i= values will be of some use to the sender. I see no
reason why the receiver can't simply ignore them.
Colo(u)r me dumb/confused/take-your-pick, but is i= effectively the
moral equivalent of IDENT (RFC1413)?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html