Jim Fenton wrote: > I am formally proposing that the i= tag > and supporting text be removed from 4871bis. > > [snip] > > In a conversation with Dave Crocker and Murray Kucherawy, they noted the > use of the local part of i= as an opaque identifier. Its use as such an > identifier is not described in any standard, but the relaxation of the > current restrictions on the use of i= (that the domain-part be a > subdomain of d=, etc.) would result in an incompatibility with RFC > 4871-compliant verifiers. It is, however, possible to remove it > entirely without creating a compatibility problem.
By remove, does that mean implementators can safely begin to not offer it for Domain signers to use or consider? Documenting this stuff to layman operators is HARD especially when we don't even have a firm grip of its utility or what value it offers. :) If its one more useless thing we don't have to ambiguously document for customer to understand and use with no real verification payoff, then +1 to remove i= from DKIM. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
