Mark Delany wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0500, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote:
That's how I was viewing a List signature. It was making no claims
about the original submission apart from "these are the bits as they
arrived at the List address". If some final list recipient sees value
in the original bits, good luck to them.
Great. Will this also work with other (i.e. non-list) forms of
forwarding?
I can't see why not particularly if:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:09:07AM -0800, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
Right. I've always viewed the h= (or z=) headers as being just
[However] We need something to perform the ssp binding,
the mere presence of a signature does not imply anything more than
taking responsibility for what emanates from that domain.
If Mike is saying that explicitness is necessary, then I think that
gels with Wietse.
I'm sorry Mark, this is a bit too terse for my semantic analyzer. -base
just says
"this is what I claim passed through me". -ssp requires a binding
between the
From: address (sender:? listId:?) and the i= to validate the policy binding,
if any.
Maybe it's just that I'm confused about what's being asked here.
Mike
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org