>I haven't been able to find anything that discusses the intention behind the >i=. I expect >they chose this i= because that's the envelope from, but the i= is suppose to >be a person, >not a mechanical address, correct?
Historical bit: it is my impression that i= was invented by people who were used to corporate mail systems where user identities are tightly controlled and all the mail can be traced back to an individual user, so the i= was that user's mail address. Needless to say, in the wider world, there are a lot of mail systems that don't work that way. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
