>be replaced by "The syntax is a standard email address where the >Local-part SHOULD be set to a user unique value".
Well, not user, since there seems to be general agreement that the address of a mailing list would be a reasonable i= value, and the domain part can (and in this message does) encode part of the user identity, but it seems clear enough what you're asking for. This gets us back to the question of whether i= values have to be stable, and if they do, what does stable mean. Given the lack of consensus about just about everything else related to i=, even though there are many scenarios where it would be handy for i= to be stable, I'd rather let people come up with a clear definitions of what stable identifiers they want and what they mean, then create a new tag or two to put them into the signature. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
