On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > But i= can't be anything at all; it *does* have certain constraints. > Thinking otherwise is a bad assumption.
I' m simply considering one of the most common use cases of i= And while it should certainly follow the accepted rfc format - the function of i= as discussed in this thread makes it moot except for the email signing + transmitting entity, unless the recipient wants to consider it. Operationally - at least in a large mail system - I believe that is the case. I would invite comments on how common this POV is .. srs _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
