At 09:01 27-01-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: > 2. Add text about the use of i= stating that it's use for > assessment goes >beyond using d= and is MUST be based on additional knowledge of its creation >that is outside the specification.
I'm commenting on item 2 because of the RFC 2119 keyword. I don't see how to implement a requirement based on the additional knowledge as it may fall under local policy unless there is a mechanism for the sender and receiver to exchange that information. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
