On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Steve pointed out to me that a basic challenge, here, is that
DKIM does not define a signature as meaning that the signer is
asserting the truthfulness of any particular bit of information in
the message. That's the inherent difference between the mild
"taking responsibility" semantics that we have given to a DKIM
signature, versus "asserting correctness" or the like.
My suggestion to deal with this is to define the basic DKIM
sematnic that all DKIM-* headers are asserted to be valid, if they
are included in the signature.
This assertion in many cases would need to exclude the From
address, but this header is required to be signed. Use of the "i='
parameter is likely the only positive means to communicate such an
assurance and is already defined within DKIM base.
"From" does not start with "DKIM-".
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html