Informative Note: DKIM signatures by parent domains as described
in section 3.8 of [RFC4871] (in which a signer uses "i=" to assert
that it is signing for a subdomain) do not satisfy the
requirements for an Author Domain Signature as defined above.
[ . . . ]
Works for me.
+1
(I'd use commas instead of parentheses, but that's minor.)
IMHO, this is still wrong. The i= value should be _ignored_ when
determining ADSP compliance. I'll try some examples.
Any sub-domain included within the i= value (AUID) will not affect
ADSP compliance. Only email-address domains that reference the DKIM
key can comply with ADSP assertions.
'----
Right. The point is that i= is irrelevant at this stage to ADSP, just
as other tags in the signature may be. The question is whether we want
to be explicit about this tag not being relevant (and hence all the
others that aren't relevant need to be stated too).
Maybe the right thing to say is that a future extension to ADSP may
address how to interpret other signature tags, such as i=, but for now
they are explicitly *not* part of the ADSP evaluation.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html