I had the feeling that Y! was using the local part of i= to do differentiation in reputation. ie various streams within the same domain.
I know the spec intent recommends, different domains for different streams, but then.... Intuition would tell me, that few people are willing (or understand) to have different domains for different streams. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fenton" <[email protected]> To: "IETF DKIM WG" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 1 April, 2011 9:33:51 AM Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) The direction of the DKIM specifications since RFC 4871 have been to rely less and less on the AUID (agent or user identifier, the i= value on the signature) to the point that it provides no security benefit. On the other hand, a malformed AUID can cause a DKIM signature not to verify, and i= currently adds to the complexity of the DKIM specification. For this reason, I am formally proposing that the i= tag and supporting text be removed from 4871bis. Comments, please. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
