MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > I view introducing a new tag at this point as problematic.
Agreed. > Using i= or even going to using d= does not require any changes to > current DKIM signing implementations. Introducing a new tag means that > implementers are at the mercy of the timeframes that vendors choose to > change how they sign DKIM. > > As I have said before, I can personally accept using d= because of how > we chose to implement DKIM signing for our domains. I lean towards i= > for ADSP because I believe it gives others benefits. So then i= would be effectively meaningless to verifiers, EXCEPT when used in conjunction with ADSP, where it needs to match the author (From:) address? Seems reasonable to me, assuming we're all agreed that i= is opaque to verifiers in all other cases. -- J.D. Falk Return Path Inc http://www.returnpath.net/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
