On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com>wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
In other words, I think the intent is that messages using the same
UAID MUST be intended to be evaluated as sharing the same sphere of
responsibility (this is a mandate on the sender's usage, not on the
receiver's interpretation); senders SHOULD thus label messages
intended to be evaluated as being within that sphere with the same
UAID (but aren't required to). I don't think that's a
contradiction....
I think I'd be fine with the draft saying that (or not, since both are
workable and defensible), but that isn't what the draft currently says.
This would obviate the need for Jim's proposed extension. On the other
hand, it would make it impossible for a signer to use "i=" in any kind of
arbitrary way.
Can you explain why you think this makes it impossible to use i= in an
arbitrary way? I don't see that that usage is excluded. If it's not intended
to be stable, there is no constraint at all except that it can't use an
identical identifier for unrelated groupings. And even if it is intended to
be stable, there is only a SHOULD for using the same identifier.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html