But i= can't be anything at all; it *does* have certain constraints.
Thinking otherwise is a bad assumption.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Tony Hansen <t...@att.com> wrote:
>> But it breaks one of the constraints placed on the i= value, which is
>> not a good thing. Why do that when you can get the same functionality by
>> using the valid values of i...@good.largeisp.com, i...@bad.largeisp.com and
>> i...@suspect.largeisp.com?
>
> That too is possible. The point about i= being a collective sum of
> multiple user reputations, in a large isp scenario, doesnt depend on
> this. But that constraint is not too relevant, given the assumption
> that i= can be anything at all and is mostly relevant to the entity
> that signs and transmits the email.
>
> -srs
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
