be replaced by "The syntax is a standard email address where the
Local-part SHOULD be set to a user unique value".
Well, not user, since there seems to be general agreement that the
address of a mailing list would be a reasonable i= value, and the
domain part can (and in this message does) encode part of the user
identity, but it seems clear enough what you're asking for.
This gets us back to the question of whether i= values have to be
stable, and if they do, what does stable mean. Given the lack of
consensus about just about everything else related to i=, even though
there are many scenarios where it would be handy for i= to be stable,
I'd rather let people come up with a clear definitions of what stable
identifiers they want and what they mean, then create a new tag or
two to put them into the signature.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html