Jim Fenton wrote:
Yes, the i= value _is_ ignored when determining ADSP compliance. The
text that refers to the i= value is in RFC 4871, not the ADSP spec, and
the point of the note is to point out that the comments about the use of
i= there don't apply to ADSP because ADSP doesn't use i=.
I am getting increasingly confused about this topic.
The Update substantially alters what RFC4871 says or implies about i=. It
could
well be that when the -bis effort does a detailed review of RFC4871+Update it
finds further clarification and removals to make about i=.
Why, then, should ADSP make any comment about i= at all, given that ADSP no
longer uses i=?
Having tidbits of clarification language can be helpful, but providing them
when
there isn't any experience to suggest their need and especially when they refer
to something that is not cited anywhere else in a specification is downright
peculiar.
Given how vigorously you seem to feel that it /should/ be included, I seem to
keep missing the compelling argument that justifies it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html