Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 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. >
As far as I can tell, the use case for an identifier that is stable is to provide additional information to reputation systems. An alternative to an indication that i= is stable is to put that in a separate tag/value, as suggested in draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint-00. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
