Douglas Otis wrote:
On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:11 PM, John Levine wrote:
...
When the d= value can not be associated with an email-address domain
(where even parent domains would also be excluded), it would represent
a third-party signature. When the i= value can not be associated with
that of an email-address, there should be no expectations that it
references a valid destination. It seems both inaccurate and counter
productive to describe the d= value as ever being opaque, and it seems
safe to do so for the i= value only when not associated with other
email-addresses within the message. Please do not overlook the
intended goal established for DKIM so soon.
+1.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html