ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis

2009-01-28 22:08:52

On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Douglas Otis 
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>  
wrote:
There will be work involved when dealing with opaque i= values when
assessing reputations.  Any amount of consolidation of this  
information will
induce a higher degree of collateral blocking.  It seems best to  
keep this
an opaque value that the sender fully controls.

Those opaque i= values will be of some use to the sender. I see no
reason why the receiver can't simply ignore them.

Colo(u)r me dumb/confused/take-your-pick, but is i= effectively the  
moral equivalent of IDENT (RFC1413)?


Mark.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html