Douglas Otis wrote:
Introduction:
,--
| ... However, some domains may choose to sign all of their
| outgoing mail, for example, to protect their brand name. It is
| highly desirable for such domains to be able to advertise that fact
| to verifiers, and that messages claiming to be from them that do not
| have a valid signature are likely to be forgeries. This is the topic
| for sender signing practices.
'--
This statement overlooks messages forwarded by mailing-lists and the
like where a signature might become invalid.
Perhaps change "claiming to be from them" to "claiming to be directly
from them".
DKIM tries to be as path-agnostic as possible, so the word "directly" is
problematic. If it goes through a transparent (non-modifying)
forwarder, is it "directly from them"? Probably not, so this wording
understates DKIM's value.
This case is covered under the wording "likely" in "likely to be
forgeries". Should it say "more likely to be forgeries" instead?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html