On Jun 17, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Based on my understanding of DKIM, this isn't necessarily violating
the DKIM spec, but it does seem to be not the right thing to use for
the i= value
My understanding of i= semantics is that it has no formal meaning except to
its creator.[1] As long as the syntactic form is followed, it is acceptable
for it to contain anything.[2]
At which point I'd expect the constraints to be privacy and utility,
according to whatever criteria the creator wishes to invoke.
Thanks. That does help.
I'm thinking my client should stop doing this, just because it really
seems wrong but I have no justification for recommending that other
than "that can't be right."
I haven't been able to find anything that discusses the intention
behind the i=. I expect they chose this i= because that's the
envelope from, but the i= is suppose to be a person, not a mechanical
address, correct?
Different people had different intentions for i=, over the course of i=
development. Basically, the original spec promoted some confusion on its
role and the role of d=. We followed up with an effort to explicitly resolve
this. The above statement summarizes my understanding of the result, for i=.
Again, thank you.
I've asked the client why they chose that, we'll see what they day.
laura
--
Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise "The Deliverability Experts!"
Direct: 650 678-3454 Fax: 650 249-1909
AIM: wttwlaura YIM: wttw_laura
Delivery blog: <http://blog.wordtothewise.com/>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html