[ietf-dkim] Re: Attempted summary
MarkD+dkim at yahoo-inc.com
Thu Jan 26 12:22:01 PST 2006
> >>Great. Will this also work with other (i.e. non-list) forms of
> >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 ...
> 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"?
More information about the ietf-dkim