-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Jim Fenton
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
The working group was bamboozled into the false dilemma
that DKIM had to produce a singular "output". It has all
gone down hill from there. Things that use heuristics like
spam filters thrive with more information, and suffer with
less. So we've destroyed information in the name of aesthetics
while the main consumers of the output thrive on the messy
details.
My recollection was that we decided DKIM has to produce at least one specific
output, and that the spec needed to identify what that one particular item was.
We never precluded it from making other information available.
OpenDKIM makes the entire signature and result available to the caller, so it
can use whatever it wants. And that doesn't make it non-compliant.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html