On 6/18/2013 12:43 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/17/2013 9:20 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:58 PM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
At one stage i= was thought to represent different mail streams with
different reputation,
however this did not get any traction...
...
The question was raised and dispelled on
http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2007/10/dkim-i-equal-vs-d-equal/, proving the
idea was in the air, and I read it in some deliverability documents in the
early days (tho wrong too)...
As I said, there were a variety of intentions, descriptions, desires and
claims for i=. Different people had different views. None of the
alternatives was in the spec and therefore none were standardized.
Yes, it was an unfortunate turn of events that wasn't discovered until
it was rather late in the game, so we wound up punting on the issue of
what should be in the i= value and essentially said that it was an
opaque value that was site dependent.
I always thought it would be a nice follow-on to DKIM to provide a way
for a site to specify how that site was using i=; that is, to provide
some clarity and comprehension for that value. For example, our
implementation placed the authenticated userid into i=. I know of one
site that appears to use a hash of the authenticated userid. John L says
his site uses "how the mail was injected (submit, webmail, whatever) and
who the user was if it knows". When there is a deterministic mechanism
used to create i=, and the mechanism is known, then it is possible for
additional logic to be added to the receiving side as well.
Tony Hansen
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html