ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity

2007-11-29 04:34:51
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:41:38 -0000, Jon Callas <jon(_at_)callas(_dot_)org> 
wrote:

There are a number of places that this is happening. One of which is
the continued suggestion that i= means something, or worse *must* (I
don't know if the "musts" I have seen are MUSTs) track back to the
user. Stop that, please.

The i= tag is a note from the signer to the signer. It can be
anything the signer desires, and the verifier interprets it at his
own peril. It is a Humpty-Dumpty thing, it means whatever the signer
wants it to mean.

If the i= tag does not "mean something", and the verifier cannot make use
of it for any purpose, then what on earth is the point of having it in the
standard in the first place?

AFAICS, it does not mean much, but at least is should mean that whatever
user of domain is present in that tag was known to have played some part
in bringing that message to the signer.



--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131     Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html