On 4/15/2011 8:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I'd suggest further than the definition as presented simply declares, and
gives examples of, the kinds of things the RFC means when it uses the word
"Identity". That simple definition doesn't imply (or exclude) any particular
application. The list of examples illustrates the breadth of that simple
definition.
Examples don't exclude. By definition, they provide a subset.
A DKIM signature makes no semantic statements about the relationship between
the
d= identifier and any other identifier. Any attempts to discern or impose
additional semantics is beyond the DKIM Signing specification. As a
consequence, I'm not understanding why it is being discussed at length here,
yet
again.
As for how many identities might be trusted or expected and by whom, again,
that's outside the DKIM Signing specification.
As for various post-verification processes' being outside of the DKIM signing
spec, well yeah. Asked, answered and documented. Many times over many months:
<http://dkim.org/specs/draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-11.html#rfc.figure.1>
We can't possibly need to revisit that issue.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html