[ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary

[Michael Thomas]

Mark Delany wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0500, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>That's how I was viewing a List signature. It was making no claims
>>>about the original submission apart from "these are the bits as they
>>>arrived at the List address". If some final list recipient sees value
>>>in the original bits, good luck to them.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>Great. Will this also work with other (i.e. non-list) forms of
>>forwarding?
>>    
>>
>
>I can't see why not particularly if:
>
>On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:09:07AM -0800, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Right. I've always viewed the h= (or z=) headers as being just
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>[However] We need something to perform the ssp binding,
>>    
>>
>
>the mere presence of a signature does not imply anything more than
>taking responsibility for what emanates from that domain.
>
>If Mike is saying that explicitness is necessary, then I think that
>gels with Wietse.
>  
>
I'm sorry Mark, this is a bit too terse for my semantic analyzer.  -base 
just says
"this is what I claim passed through me". -ssp requires a binding 
between the
From: address (sender:? listId:?) and the i= to validate the policy binding,
if any.

Maybe it's just that I'm confused about what's being asked here.

       Mike