That's correct. This is dependant on the receiving system having some
knowledge that the UAID is meaningful to parties outside the signing
domain, and is therefore not the default.
John Levine wrote:
Simple answer: If the purpose of the original text was to point out to
users who the message is really from in cases of suspected forgery, and
through whatever means the receiving system has decided that the real
responsible identity is the UAID and not the SDID , it seems to me to
fit better with the original intention of showing the user who the
message is really 'from' to point out the UAID.
Except that the UAID might or might not be an e-mail address. The one
on this messgage isn't.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html