On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:46:14AM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Jeff Macdonald wrote: >>> It would be equally valid for a signer to apply a different >>> pseudo-subdomain on each message, perhaps for tracking purposes. >> >> I think that is actually a mis-use of DKIM. The message-id field covers >> that nicely. > > But Message-ID:'s semantics are defined in a different layer. As things > are currently defined, the DKIM module at either end can only make use of > what's in the signature itself.
right, message tracking is covered by a different layer. >> My understanding of opaque allows identical opaque values to identify >> the same "something". > > Then you're arguing for something stronger than what the draft proposes. > The draft uses SHOULD, where to match your understanding, it would need a > MUST. Could you post the section you are referring to? -- Jeff Macdonald jmacdon...@e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
