Tony Finch wrote:
Isn't the i= tag the new identity that Keith is asking for?
Checking the draft, i= is optional, must be below d=, it's not
required to match anything selected by h=, and it's a "verifier
policy issue" [XREF TBD] with the fine print.
I'm not sure, but for Keith's idea the "signing entity" can at
least pick whatever header fields it likes in h=, that could
be From + Sender + Resent-From + Resent-Sender + List-Id or a
hypothetical Signed-From. In Jim's example...
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dkim/374/raw>
...it was "only" From. Date, Subject, Content-*. Signing the
Subject and the Content-Transfer-Encoding might be a bad idea,
and why not To and Cc ?
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org