On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Douglas Otis <[email protected]> > wrote: >> There will be work involved when dealing with opaque i= values when >> assessing reputations. Any amount of consolidation of this >> information will >> induce a higher degree of collateral blocking. It seems best to >> keep this >> an opaque value that the sender fully controls. > > Those opaque i= values will be of some use to the sender. I see no > reason why the receiver can't simply ignore them.
Colo(u)r me dumb/confused/take-your-pick, but is i= effectively the moral equivalent of IDENT (RFC1413)? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
