MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
I view introducing a new tag at this point as problematic.
Agreed.
Using i= or even going to using d= does not require any changes to
current DKIM signing implementations. Introducing a new tag means that
implementers are at the mercy of the timeframes that vendors choose to
change how they sign DKIM.
As I have said before, I can personally accept using d= because of how
we chose to implement DKIM signing for our domains. I lean towards i=
for ADSP because I believe it gives others benefits.
So then i= would be effectively meaningless to verifiers, EXCEPT when used
in conjunction with ADSP, where it needs to match the author (From:) address?
Seems reasonable to me, assuming we're all agreed that i= is opaque to
verifiers in all other cases.
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html