ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Responsibility vs. Validity

2007-11-30 09:26:09
It has to be of the syntactic form of an <addr>. The usual implication of  
such syntax appearing in a standard is that a thing that looks like an  
<addr> is expected to be an <addr>. If there is any other intent (e.g. it  
was a Message-ID), then one would expect the standard to say so.

The local part is not a mailbox, and it's not a Message-ID.  If it
were a mailbox, it would say it was a mailbox, or if it were a
Message-ID, it would say it's a Message-ID.  We're not deconstructing
the Talmud here, the words mean what they say.

The wording in 4871 strongly suggests, by implication, that the
domain at least is supposed to be a domain.

Um, it's not an implication, its a MUST:

  The domain part of the address MUST be the same as or a subdomain of
  the value of the "d=" tag.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html