But i= can't be anything at all; it *does* have certain constraints.
Thinking otherwise is a bad assumption.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
But it breaks one of the constraints placed on the i= value, which is
not a good thing. Why do that when you can get the same functionality by
using the valid values of i=(_at_)good(_dot_)largeisp(_dot_)com,
i=(_at_)bad(_dot_)largeisp(_dot_)com and
i=(_at_)suspect(_dot_)largeisp(_dot_)com?
That too is possible. The point about i= being a collective sum of
multiple user reputations, in a large isp scenario, doesnt depend on
this. But that constraint is not too relevant, given the assumption
that i= can be anything at all and is mostly relevant to the entity
that signs and transmits the email.
-srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html