On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:01:21 -0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<ops(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Charles Lindsey
<chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:46:25 -0000, Al Iverson
<aiverson(_at_)spamresource(_dot_)com>
wrote:
So the UAID is essentially a sender-created identifier used for
whatever purpose a sender wishes.
Not quite. I expect conventions to arise for its use in particular
situations. For example, it might become common (even mandatory) to use
it
Let's put it this way - that'd be "a purpose the sender wishes" and
not entirely inconsistent with what you say.
But it's place wouldnt be in the RFC - it'd be in a use case document
such as I suggested some few dozen emails back ...
Not in any RFC we are envisioning at the moment, but quite possibly in
some future RFC intended to standardize some intended application of DKIM.
That might well mandate some specific way to use the i= tag in some class
of readily identifiable messages - some standard for List Expanders is the
case that obviously springs to mind. In such a case, the contents of i=
would become more than just "what the sender wishes".
We don't need to propose such a standard now, but we DO need to ensure
that we do not tie up the wording in such a way that would make such a
future standard impossible (not that Dave's wording has any such effect as
currently written).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html