> Well, I reviewed the archives for the period during which i= was added
> and could not find discussion of it. So I'm glad to hear you've done
> a more thorough review. This means that you can point me to the
> archives of the working group consideration of the issue?
I wouldn't waste any more time chasing this. Even if no such archive
exists, what is that but evidence that this issue is idiosyncratic or
has been deemed utterly unremarkable?
Also, let us reject the title of this thread and thereby strip away it's
illegitimate claim of "paradigm change". The burden of proof is on
those who assert that such a change has occurred. It certainly has not.
The notion that "DKIM-Base is for signed mail while DKIM-SSP is for
unsigned (only)" has never been thinking in accord with any draft of SSP
which I remember reading or implementing. And it's clearly out of step
with where we are today.
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html