Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: >> This agrees with my understanding, too. The i= may have to be an >> identity, but nothing says the identity has to be meaningful to anyone >> other than the signer. > > In which case either the errata doc or the -bis rfc has to introduce a > "MAY" for i= being an identity instead of tying the two together and > effectively excluding the most common uses to which i= will be put.
Interesting. The key point I'm hearing is that having i= represent the identity of an (individual) user makes it inappropriate to use for identifying a mail stream, that is, aggregate traffic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
