Jon Callas wrote:
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.
Right, of course...I think I've now come (back?) around to this idea...at
the very least, as the rest of this thread shows, we need a lot more
discussion & experimentation around the idea of a stable(-ish)
individual(-ish) identifier.
But since so many people passionately want a stable individual identifier,
it seems we're going to need to clarify language in a bunch of places.
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html