On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:04:10PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote: >> It looks as if the two of you are agreeing that the i= value is indeed >> opaque to a receiver. > >Cant speak for madkins but that's my impression. I would also add >"often irrelevant" besides "opaque"
you lost me Suresh. It seemed like you were saying that i= would be useful for different streams or groups of identities but then you say "often irrelevant". I believe what i= means is irrelevant from the perspective of a receiver, but it does denote that something is different than a straight d= value. Is that your thinking too? -- Jeff Macdonald [email protected] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
