Douglas Otis wrote: >> On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:11 PM, John Levine wrote: >> >> ... > > When the d= value can not be associated with an email-address domain > (where even parent domains would also be excluded), it would represent > a third-party signature. When the i= value can not be associated with > that of an email-address, there should be no expectations that it > references a valid destination. It seems both inaccurate and counter > productive to describe the d= value as ever being opaque, and it seems > safe to do so for the i= value only when not associated with other > email-addresses within the message. Please do not overlook the > intended goal established for DKIM so soon.
+1. -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
