[ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
dotis at mail-abuse.org
Thu Apr 7 17:00:11 PDT 2011
On 4/7/11 10:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> 2) Can we use i= for a purpose of reputation as a) it's meaning is
>> > loosely defined, b) it is there already (cf (1) ) c) it has been used
>> > by some to differentiate different emails in the same domain.
> You could, if you know that the use of "i=" by a given SDID is consistent, and it's useful for you to track per-AUID reputation. Those are two big "if"s to me.
Anyone processing this type of data will quickly determine whether the
i= field provides value with respect to correlation.
Anything else within the message is likely to offer less. Even
proposing an "ideal" and perfectly defined header is unlikely to find
the current levels of i= compliance, although some may disdain its
inelegant domain matching requirement. Nothing is perfect and it would
be unfortunate to have it deprecated for that reason.
More information about the ietf-dkim