On 4/5/2011 3:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
This thread has a basic flaw: it is predicated on a a particular
interpretation of i=, which is undocumented and certainly not
standardized.
Of course, but a signature bearing a "d=" representing an ADMD with which I
have an a priori arrangement to interpret "i=" in a particular way could be
useful. Such out-of-band arrangements certainly can't be standardized, but
that doesn't mean there's no possible use for it at all anywhere, does it?
I thought the discussion here was about standardized mechanisms. At the least,
we have some history of confusion between what is standardized and what is not.
As for what can be done outside of standardization, between consenting ADMDs,
I'm socially liberal...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html