(previous notes snipped; this here is my point...)
Hector Santos wrote:
Right. Defining the timestamp is important. I believe it should be
generically described as the transaction reception time - the time
it arrived at the host system, not the time it was actually verified
or received by the user.
Exactly what I'm trying to say. The discussion seems to have
condensed around deciding which "reception time" is relevant, which, to
me, misses the whole purpose of the task at hand. Who cares, in
sender-authentication terms, when the email is received, tossed, read,
or replied to? What is relevant, is when the post was _sent_, and
whether or not _that_ timestamp is before or after the expiration timestamp.
Or am I missing the whole point? Exactly what problem is DKIM
spostabe solving, here? As I read it, the WG description on
www.ietf.org says that the WG is about helping people figure out where
an email came from. For that, _only_ the timestamps around the
originator's initial transmission, and the originating domain's release
into the jungle, are relevant.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html