On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:46:14AM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
It would be equally valid for a signer to apply a different
pseudo-subdomain on each message, perhaps for tracking purposes.
I think that is actually a mis-use of DKIM. The message-id field covers
But Message-ID:'s semantics are defined in a different layer. As things
are currently defined, the DKIM module at either end can only make use of
what's in the signature itself.
right, message tracking is covered by a different layer.
My understanding of opaque allows identical opaque values to identify
the same "something".
Then you're arguing for something stronger than what the draft proposes.
The draft uses SHOULD, where to match your understanding, it would need a
Could you post the section you are referring to?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to