I had the feeling that Y! was using the local part of i= to do differentiation
in reputation. ie various streams within the same domain.
I know the spec intent recommends, different domains for different streams, but
then....
Intuition would tell me, that few people are willing (or understand) to have
different domains for different streams.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fenton" <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, 1 April, 2011 9:33:51 AM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
The direction of the DKIM specifications since RFC 4871 have been to
rely less and less on the AUID (agent or user identifier, the i= value
on the signature) to the point that it provides no security benefit. On
the other hand, a malformed AUID can cause a DKIM signature not to
verify, and i= currently adds to the complexity of the DKIM
specification. For this reason, I am formally proposing that the i= tag
and supporting text be removed from 4871bis.
Comments, please.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html