Re: [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis p

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:45 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis 
process



Eliot Lear wrote:
> The whole point of l= was to say that beyond it you should treat the
> content as suspicious.

Eliot,

Since DKIM Signature does not make statements about the differential handling of
content, signed or unsigned, I'm not clear what you base this assertion on.  Can
you clarify?

As I understand DKIM Signature, there is are validly signed messages (with their
identifiers) and there are all other messages, and that binary distinction is
the limit of DKIM semantics.  You appear to be going beyond the specification.

d/

--

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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