On 05/04/2011 12:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:08 PM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: Dave CROCKER; Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain
Identity"
Verifiers must not ignore them, assessors on the other hand may.
Either could. It's an implementation choice.
If the verifier wants to enable the assessor to make the call, it's free to
export "l=" information.
I agree that it's an implementation issue. All of this is. But choosing
a single "output" formally makes that a no-no for the assessor, which
is a silly outcome. And it's but one silly outcome. What of the h= values?
How does an assessor know which ones were signed? That's a layering
violation according to -bis. Silly.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html