>The stability part I agree with. For the second area of interest, are >you saying the verifier would only find it interesting if i= was the >same as the user's (for some definition of 'user') email address?
There's a school of thought that verifiers could do something extra if they knew that the i= was supposed to be an actual e-mail address. (Send the complaints there, I guess.) As it stands, you can't tell whether i= is supposed to be an address, a stable identifier, a serial number, or whatever. So I suggested we could define some new flag values to put into the t= in the keys so that signers could declare their intentions, with the two suggested flags being "it's stable" and "it's an address". R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
