-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
With DKIM i=, it becomes possible to convey a stable identifier
(though of
course there's no guarantee that the identifier is stable, leading
to John's
t= suggestion.) Without DKIM (or something like it), as we know, any
potential identifiers are trivially forged.
I want to point out as well that a stable identifier doesn't have to
be a field in the DKIM header.
It's trivial to make a new header for the stable identifier and have
that be in the list of headers signed.
I believe that this is even a *better* solution than trying to make i=
be something that it is and cannot be, and better than adding in a new
DKIM option.
That DKIM-base allows, supports, and encourages a way to have
additional headers that are signed is a major feature. We should
encourage it.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFJf20esTedWZOD3gYRAgebAKDkfmpaYc9C1ElN+tifEwbXwzaZmACg42Iq
rzP2bcJP+AAJ+smlSkcSVxk=
=8Xrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html