[dkim-dev] g=;

[Jim Fenton]

Juan Altmayer Pizzorno wrote:
> Folks,
>
> "g=;" in the key, according to DKIM draft, "never matches any addresses".
> Does anybody know what is the rationale for creating a key that never matches
> any addresses?  It seems to me it would have made more sense for it to match
> the empty local part, which happens in i='s default.  What am I missing?
>
>
>   
As a general rule, omitted tags get the default value (in this case, *) 
and tags with the null value get the null value, not the default.  So 
the g=; case is just for consistency with the general rule; I'm not sure 
this is necessarily useful.

As for having g=; match a signature with having i= not have a 
local-part, the null local-part for i= is not really a null address but 
a statement "it could be anything" and as such it should require g=* to 
match it.

-Jim