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

[Douglas Otis]

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.
Murray,

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.

-Doug