Juan Altmayer Pizzorno wrote:
Folks,
"g=;" in the key, according to DKIM draft, "never matches any addresses".
Does anybody know what is the rationale for creating a key that never matches
any addresses? It seems to me it would have made more sense for it to match
the empty local part, which happens in i='s default. What am I missing?
As a general rule, omitted tags get the default value (in this case, *)
and tags with the null value get the null value, not the default. So
the g=; case is just for consistency with the general rule; I'm not sure
this is necessarily useful.
As for having g=; match a signature with having i= not have a
local-part, the null local-part for i= is not really a null address but
a statement "it could be anything" and as such it should require g=* to
match it.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
dkim-dev mailing list
dkim-dev(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-dev