On 06/18/2013 07:18 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
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
onhttp://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.
It was known really early on, it's just that some people wanted to wait 8 years
to
do the work.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html