--- Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com> wrote:
That is not correct. The local part of the i= is intended to
provide a binding to the local part of outside origination
headers, not just the domain part. Which is why it is,
in fact, a primary goal.
One only has to look at Yahoo's web mail interface to
understand what significance they place on that binding.
Eh? Which binding is that particularly?
As I understand it, Yahoo's web mail interface identifies the verified domain
with a message like:
"Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by
*verified-domain*."
The binding of interest, both in terms of rendering and input to internal
reputation engines is on a domain basis (and bilaterally selector).
The g= is an admittedly crude attempt to constrain the use of delegated keys
and is not intended to be of particular interest to a verifier above and beyond
ensuring the constraint is complied with as part of the verification rules.
Similar to IDENT, localpart strikes me as being of most interest to the sending
domain rather than the receiving domain. Certainly other receivers might find
localpart interesting, but for the foreseeable future, it's not of much
interest to me.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim