On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:09 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
>> 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. > At one stage i= was thought to represent different mail streams with different reputation, however this did not get any traction... _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
