Yes, we are in agreement about opacity. I would even agree about the
'often irrelevant' part. It's the few large cases where it's a good
solution that I would like to make sure we can still use it.
And I didn't really mean for my comment on the errata to turn into a
discussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can
come back to it later.
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:34 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: Adkins, Michael; DKIM IETF WG
Subject: 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