ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Not exactly not a threat analysis

2005-08-22 08:47:32
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:12:33 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
 On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:33:11 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
 It shouldn't be an either-or choice.  The author should be able to sign
 the message indicating that he wrote the content (so that a recipient can
 verify that yes, it really was written by who it says), and the list
 should be able to sign the message to indicate that the message was
 forwarded via the list (so that a recipient can verify that yes, the
 message really did come from the list).


 This describes two different semantics for a DKIM signature.  Where does the
 current DKIM specification provide for such distinction in the semantics, so
 that it can be reliably and accurately interpreted by a verifying agent?

Does this mean that you are proposing an enhancement to the DKIM goals (and, 
therefore, the specification) to provide a means for a signer to indicate their 
semantic "intent" or "meaning" in doing the signature?  

If yes, how?  If no, then please clarify what you are proposing that changes 
DKIM.



  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net



_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org