On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Jeff Macdonald
<jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com> wrote:
you lost me Suresh. It seemed like you were saying that i= would be
useful for different streams or groups of identities but then you say
"often irrelevant".
I believe what i= means is irrelevant from the perspective of a
receiver, but it does denote that something is different than a
straight d= value. Is that your thinking too?
Does my followup email (which I just sent) clarify things better?
i= values MAY denote something different from a straight d= value, and
when there's a shared understanding of the i= values, and of the
underlying reputation model, d= will generally amount to sum(i= 1..n)
But i= is entirely useless and, more importantly, untrustable without
some out of band trust worked out - either through a reputation vendor
certifying the i=, or through mutual contact (such as your setting up
a feedback loop with an ISP that bases its loop on dkim, and then
telling them what your signing policies are)
--srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html