On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Charles Lindsey <[email protected]> wrote: > We don't need to propose such a standard now, but we DO need to ensure > that we do not tie up the wording in such a way that would make such a > future standard impossible (not that Dave's wording has any such effect as > currently written).
So, I dont see where there's a problem :) We're both agreeing with each other here, or did I miss something. Dave's wording strikes me as sufficiently flexible. And there appears to be a fairly broad consensus developing now that i= is opaque and its use is mostly at the sender side for their internal parsing - but may be tied to a reputation model with prior agreement between individual senders and receivers. There's nothing in the current wording that stops this from happening. thanks srs _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
