Jim Fenton wrote:
RFC 5016:
While a DKIM signed message
speaks for itself, there is ambiguity if a message doesn't have a
valid first party signature (i.e., on behalf of the [RFC2822].From
address): is this to be expected or not?
This requirements statement is actually self-contradictory, since the
words "speaks for itself" rather explicitly means that any signature
is sufficient, while the rest of the sentence seems to mean that the
wishes of the purported author dominate.
This is not a requirements statement; you are quoting from the
introduction to RFC 5016, containing discussion leading up to the actual
requirements statements in section 5.
Are you saying that the Introduction's statement is wrong?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html