Charles Lindsey wrote: > But, to go further, if the signer goes to the trouble of including an > "i=" (which he is not obliged to do), then surely recipients are > entitled to assume he did so for some good reason. So if he said > i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender can be expected > to be from that subdomain; and if he said [EMAIL PROTECTED], then > surely recipients can assume that 'someone' had indeed played some > part in sending it. > In addition to the points made by others, I'd like to point out that there are no semantics associated with the presence or absence of the i= parameter. There is always a signing identity; if d=example.com and the signing identity happens to be @example.com, then the i= parameter may be omitted.
We're straying quite a bit from the SSP topic. I'd still like to get actual feedback on that draft. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
