[ietf-dkim] Not exactly not a threat analysis

[Dave Crocker]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:12:33 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>  On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:33:11 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >  It shouldn't be an either-or choice.  The author should be able to sign
> >  the message indicating that he wrote the content (so that a recipient can
> >  verify that yes, it really was written by who it says), and the list
> >  should be able to sign the message to indicate that the message was
> >  forwarded via the list (so that a recipient can verify that yes, the
> >  message really did come from the list).
>
>
>  This describes two different semantics for a DKIM signature.  Where does the
>  current DKIM specification provide for such distinction in the semantics, so
>  that it can be reliably and accurately interpreted by a verifying agent?

Does this mean that you are proposing an enhancement to the DKIM goals (and, 
therefore, the specification) to provide a means for a signer to indicate their 
semantic "intent" or "meaning" in doing the signature?  

If yes, how?  If no, then please clarify what you are proposing that changes 
DKIM.



  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net