Jim Fenton wrote:
I guess I should be paying more attention to the dkim-deployment
drafts.
RFC 4871 is very explicit about the meaning of the g= value. Last
paragraph of section 3.2:
Tags that have an empty value are not the same as omitted tags. An
omitted tag is treated as having the default value; a tag with an
empty value explicitly designates the empty string as the value.
For
example, "g=" does not mean "g=*", even though "g=*" is the default
for that tag.
The semantics of g= has no dependency on the presence or absence of
the v= tag/value. One of the ways of revoking a DKIM key is to
apply a null g= tag (g=;) which makes it unusable. Coming up with a
way of guessing whether the signing domain really meant "g=;" is not
a good idea and contradicts the specification.
Hmm -- back in IETF73 we seemed to agree (at least according to the
email below) that guessing is, while probably not a good idea,
possibly less bad than the alternative:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q4/010820.html
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html