[ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary

[Mark Delany]

> >>Great. Will this also work with other (i.e. non-list) forms of
> >>forwarding?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I can't see why not particularly if:

> >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.

I take that as a complement on this list ...

> -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.

Right. So the question is, can a signature be constructed such that it
doesn't interact with SSP to infer a binding above and beyond "I claim
it passed through me"?


Mark.