ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus point on ADSP

2009-03-28 00:39:48
  Note:   ADSP is incompatible with valid DKIM usage in which a  
signer
     uses "i=" with values that are not the same as addresses in  
mail
     headers.  In that case, a possible workaround could be to add a
     second DKIM signature a "d=" value that matches the Author
     Address, but no "i=".


I'll start by proposing text that we could use if we adopted an
alternate definition of Author Signature based on the d= value only.
Then I'll describe what I think we'll lose by going to that  
definition.

Given that i= is an arbitrary value assigned by the signer, the  
question to me is what value does it add beyond what signed RFC2822  
headers can do just as well. Eg, why not set an rfc2822.Sender Field  
and sign that rather than invent i=?

IOW, what is the value-add in inventing yet another identity called  
DKIM.i= when we already have rfc2822.From, rfc2822.sender,  
rfc2822.resent-from, rfc2822.resent-sender and rfc2821.mailfrom?

Are you suggesting that DKIM.i= should have preference over signed  
RFC2822 identifiers?


Mark.


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>