Damon wrote:
On 8/2/06, *Stephen Farrell* <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie
<mailto:stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>> wrote:
Damon wrote:
> As the sender whom signed the message, I want to tell the
receiver to
> trust mine and ignore (or dislike) the rest. I don't want anyone
else to
> sign in my place if I am the one signing.
> Right?
We're not talking about people signing in an unauthorized way. DKIM
allows signatures to be appended which are not necessarily on behalf
of the 2822.from domain. In fact, it's only SSP that makes a correlation
between 2822.from and the signature. So the mere fact that there's more
than one signature is nothing to be alarmed about.
That's exactly where we started:-) Some people (incl. me) don't
see any benefit in disliking additional signatures. (And of course
there's no point is telling a receiver to trust you:-)
Then why have mulitple sigs at all. Stop at the first signer.
If there are multiple then I would want to dislike them... even treat
them with higher scores.
I think you two are talking past each other. There's nothing inherently
suspicious in the mail architecture about relays, which is what this all
really boils down to. Trying to judge the topological route a message
will take from the standpoint of the sender is a risky if not futile
endevor.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html