On 5/21/09 5:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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=".
Sure there is. It is simply "unsigned" beyond the value of l=.
That was always the implication, right?
It is no where in the specification and I believe it never was.
I believe this was explicitly stated elsewhere, like on this list.
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.
Well, that is what I wrote (I concede I don't know the difference
between well beyond an far beyond ;-)
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.
Perhaps, but why do you think so?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html