ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

2006-04-02 06:54:57
Eric Rescorla wrote:
Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:


Stephen,



So, in an attempt to move towards that,  let me
try to ask for opinions on this discrete part of
the issue: When an n-th signature(*) is added by
some signer, does that mean:
a) I take independent responsibility for having
  sent/fowarded (the bits of) this email (that I've
  signed), or,
b) Me too, whatever that previous good signer
  meant - it's not gotten worse.

The meaning of a DKIM signature has been kept intentionally minimal
and vague. Something like alternative (b) moves towards complex
relationships among signers, whereas (a) retains basic simplicity.

So, I hope (a) is the choice.

To the extent that a signer includes the DKIM-signature header of a
previous signature, that ought to mean nothing more than ordering, not
semantics.


I have to agree with Dave here. (b) sounds way too confusing.

Mein Gott. And it's not even 1-April.

+1

                Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html