Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> 
wrote:
> It looks as if the two of you are agreeing that the i= value is indeed
> opaque to a receiver.
Cant speak for madkins but that's my impression.  I would also add
"often irrelevant"  besides "opaque"

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html