>For there to be reasonable semantic meaning, it must be understandable. > >Whether it were done by adding semantic signposts for i=, additional tag >values, or additional 5322 headers, it should *not* be done in an ad-hoc >fashion.
Quite right. We need drafts, implementations, all the usual stuff. At this point, i= is clearly nothing other than an opaque token with a funky syntax, which seems not to be very useful semantics. I get the impression that some people (not you) are under the misconception that if they can sneak their pet feature into the spec, that will force everyone to implement it. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
