Yes, we are in agreement about opacity. I would even agree about the 'often irrelevant' part. It's the few large cases where it's a good solution that I would like to make sure we can still use it.
And I didn't really mean for my comment on the errata to turn into a discussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can come back to it later. -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:34 AM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Adkins, Michael; DKIM IETF WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871 On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > It looks as if the two of you are agreeing that the i= value is indeed > opaque to a receiver. Cant speak for madkins but that's my impression. I would also add "often irrelevant" besides "opaque" -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
