On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Jeff Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Does my followup email (which I just sent) clarify things better? i= values MAY denote something different from a straight d= value, and when there's a shared understanding of the i= values, and of the underlying reputation model, d= will generally amount to sum(i= 1..n) But i= is entirely useless and, more importantly, untrustable without some out of band trust worked out - either through a reputation vendor certifying the i=, or through mutual contact (such as your setting up a feedback loop with an ISP that bases its loop on dkim, and then telling them what your signing policies are) --srs _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
