----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Franck Martin" <franck(_at_)genius(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011 2:28:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
So if we keep i= as is in the spec, we can conclude the standard
process and give a meaning of i= outside this spec in another RFC?
No, it's not backward compatible. My signatures all have a fully
compliant i= value which is not an e-mail address. (Take a look.)
Yes, I said it needs to follow an email format, but it is not an email address
(do not email there!)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html