On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
But i= can't be anything at all; it *does* have certain constraints.
Thinking otherwise is a bad assumption.
I' m simply considering one of the most common use cases of i=
And while it should certainly follow the accepted rfc format - the
function of i= as discussed in this thread makes it moot except for
the email signing + transmitting entity, unless the recipient wants to
consider it.
Operationally - at least in a large mail system - I believe that is
the case. I would invite comments on how common this POV is ..
srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html