Except that the UAID might or might not be an e-mail address. The one
on this messgage isn't.
So, for clarity, can you (or someone) call out what you think is
the impact, if any, for ADSP, caused by this proposed change to
4871.
Nothing. ADSP's attempt to force i= to be an identifier that is an e-mail
address was wrong before, and the errata doesn't change that.
I've put a note pointing that out in the proposed next draft, with a
kludgy workaround being a second signature with no i= field.
If it were up to me, I'd remove all the references to i= from ADSP, but
there seem to be people who believe that it will be useful.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html