Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)

[Franck Martin]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "John R. Levine" <jo...@iecc.com>
> To: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
> Cc: "Franck Martin" <fra...@genius.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011 2:28:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
> >> So if we keep i= as is in the spec, we can conclude the standard
> >> process and give a meaning of i= outside this spec in another RFC?
> 
> No, it's not backward compatible. My signatures all have a fully
> compliant i= value which is not an e-mail address. (Take a look.)
> 
Yes, I said it needs to follow an email format, but it is not an email address 
(do not email there!)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html