On 26/Apr/11 23:13, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think I understand the intent, here, and I'm supportive of the goal.
However
the text is technically invalid. A DKIM signature has only one meaning,
relative to existing, formal specification.
"Inferring" meanings beyond what is defined is very, very far outside of the
scope of DKIM and it isn't documented anywhere, including the MLM document.
Yes, "any possible owner-specific semantics are outside the scope of
DKIM." However, the MLM does explore circumstances outside such
scope. Perhaps, this can be said explicitly:
A signing MLM can make its role apparent by properly choosing the
signing domain, SDID, the one used in the "d=" tag of the DKIM
signatures added by the MLM. Recognizing the role of a signer
allows to infer implied semantics that are outside the scope of
DKIM. Two criteria are as follows:
* A signature can be identified as pertaining to an aliasing or
resending MLM if the domain-part of the List-Post field matches
the signing domain.
* When no List-Post field is present, a signature can be
identified as pertaining to an authoring or digesting MLM if the
list-id-namespace (see [LIST-ID]) matches the signing domain.
These spontaneous bindings are assessment-level heuristics whose
use is hereby suggested. They are not specified by any currently
existing standard, and not required.
(I left off that "the reputation of the signer will be a more critical
data point".)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html