Eliot Lear wrote:
On 5/21/09 4:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think the point is that you can't make assertions of responsibility
for the information beyond l=.
Eliot,
But with respect to "assertions" about a message, DKIM only has
valid-vs-unsigned.
There is no concept of "responsibility for information behond l=".
That was always the implication, right?
It is no where in the specification and I believe it never was.
So now you're a mail firewall and you see lots of URLs tagged at the
end, with nobody asserting responsibility. That's an indicator that
there is a problem. What one does with that problem is well beyond the
scope of DKIM, but one could easily see several different courses of action:
Now you inventing behaviors that go far beyond the specification.
If such behaviors are necessary to make l= meaningful and useful -- and your
line of frankly reasonable thinking does seem to imply this, though I doubt it
was your intention -- then the specification for this bit of mechanism is
seriously deficient.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html