On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote: > note your reliance on "ISPs aware of this i= classification". It means that > the mechanism won't scale, since we cannot assume that an arbitrary receiver > will be aware of an arbitrary signer's scheme.
The nice thing about i= is that it doesnt have to mean a thing except to the sender emitting it. The sender should not count on recipients knowing about i= or caring about it enough to matter. So - if a sender wants to sign i= besides d=.. they can count on a feedback loop based on d= coming back to them and then separating this loop email easily into multiple client domains based on the i= they have inserted. That's entirely internal to them and none of the ISP's concern, if they choose to ignore that i=. And if the ISP wants to sign i= to separate their mail streams up to the receiver to decide whether they want to filter based on it or not. i= can be freeform and any arbitrary value for all that I care (e&oe some due diligence to stop mta exploit attempts being stuffed in i=) --srs _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
