On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Douglas Otis wrote: > The WG should also discuss the merits of making a statement warning > against a domain overlapping their valid namespace with fictitious or > token i= values. While such overlap should be discouraged to avoid > confusing recipients as to what the i= values means, this has received > little discussion other than to say the i= value represents a totally > separate namespace. Since this statement is _not_ always true, some > effort should be made by the domain to ensure that there is no apparent > overlap within the same message. Several techniques can ensure the > isolation of different i= value uses.
I think that's flipped logic from what the working group should say (and is saying via both of the proposed errata on this topic). IMHO, it is sufficient to indicate that the local-part of "i=" is opaque. Absent any secure indication from the signer that such a value is stable and/or maps to an address, the verifier is thus admonished against jumping to that conclusion, even if they do appear to be the same. It's becoming clear, though, that such an indication mechanism would probably be beneficial. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
