On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Charles Lindsey
<chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
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).
So, I dont see where there's a problem :) We're both agreeing with
each other here, or did I miss something.
Dave's wording strikes me as sufficiently flexible. And there appears
to be a fairly broad consensus developing now that i= is opaque and
its use is mostly at the sender side for their internal parsing - but
may be tied to a reputation model with prior agreement between
individual senders and receivers.
There's nothing in the current wording that stops this from happening.
thanks
srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html