Just trying to "connect the dots." SM wrote: > Hi Hector, > At 11:18 01-04-2011, Hector Santos wrote: >> Off hand, and I have to go back, I believe seeing some systems using >> Authetication-Results to always include a i= as part of its A-R header >> result whether it was defined or not and when not, a default value is >> displayed. For example, this is the A-R result for my signature into >> this IETF-DKIM list: >> >> Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; >> dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@isdg.net > > [snip] > >> Does that mean, a proposal to remove i= in DKIM-BASE, would imply an >> update to the A-R draft is necessary? > > RFC 5451 is a proposed standard. It is not a product of the DKIM WG. > It's up to the author of that RFC to see whether an update is necessary. > > Regards, > -sm > >
-- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
