Jon Callas wrote: > It's trivial to make a new header for the stable identifier and have > that be in the list of headers signed. > > I believe that this is even a *better* solution than trying to make i= > be something that it is and cannot be, and better than adding in a new > DKIM option.
Right, of course...I think I've now come (back?) around to this idea...at the very least, as the rest of this thread shows, we need a lot more discussion & experimentation around the idea of a stable(-ish) individual(-ish) identifier. But since so many people passionately want a stable individual identifier, it seems we're going to need to clarify language in a bunch of places. -- J.D. Falk Return Path Inc http://www.returnpath.net/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
