Dave CROCKER wrote:
4. For receivers, this string is completely opaque -- that is,
uninterpretable.
Therefore, within the scope of the DKIM base specification, the entire i=
string is *always* unresolvable, in that it has no syntax and no semantics,
other than string1(_at_)string2, and string2 equals d= or is a subdomain of
d=.
Keep in mind, I view this statement with inconsistent points and idea
- makes no engineering logical sense.
You have reconfirmed there is a protocol consistency rule check here -
the string2 syntax, format and value requirements. In that vain, it
is not opaque and it is interpretable and subject to a possible 100%
legitimate verifier protocol consistency checking.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html