Re: [ietf-dkim] Who signs what

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:25 PM
> To: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Who signs what
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> > bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
> > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:32 AM
> > To: DKIM List
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Who signs what
> >
> > I don't think there is a consensus on what a 3rd party signature is.
> Oh, I disagree.  As someone (Ian?) pointed out, there's some long-
> established common use about what the term "third-party" means, and I
> don't think we need to establish rough consensus on something like
that.
> For a message (not even specifically email) from A to B via C, A is
the
> first party, B is the second party, C is the third party.
>
> The first several definitions I found via a simple Google search
> concurred.
>
> Let's not waste time on this.
I think the only difference is the one that Steve pointed out and I know
but didn't state accurately due to lack of sleep (2 hours last night). 

Domain owners may choose to sign with a signature with a d= different
than the domain in the rfc5321 From. That would make the domain owner
signature a 3rd party signature for that particular ADSP case rather
than a 1st party signature.

Mike

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