On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:42:44 -0000, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Since the new consensus appears to be that i= has semantics that are
entirely
undefined, it does not seem possible that the wg would advise showing it
to an
end user.
Eh? The tag i= is likely to be completely opaque to any ISP through whom
the message passes, and hence to the likely Verifiers and Validators.
However, if the Sender has chosen to communicate with the End User, then
there is an above random probability that their exists some prior
relationship between them, possibly a quite close relationship. Thus the
End User is far more likely to be able to make sense of the i= tag, should
be get to see it, than his ISP who attampted to validate it.
--
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