On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:28:12PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > The issue whether the i= identity has been validated in some fashion can > not be answered without some specific additional assertion added to DKIM.
I'm really having trouble understanding that since i= must be part or equal to d=, why there needs to be further validation. Why would a signing domain add an i= that would not be responsible? If the answer is "because you can", why would one believe that d= would be responsible? -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
