John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that
tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. Some
signers may use a different value, which would demonstrate the wisdom
of separating them.
Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
I would be interested. If ADSP isn't supposed to be part of the base
spec, there's no reason folks interested in using it can't add a
specific additional tag to implement it.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html