[ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

[Dave Crocker]

Stephen,


> So, in an attempt to move towards that,  let me
> try to ask for opinions on this discrete part of
> the issue: When an n-th signature(*) is added by
> some signer, does that mean:
> 
> a) I take independent responsibility for having
>    sent/fowarded (the bits of) this email (that I've
>    signed), or,
> b) Me too, whatever that previous good signer
>    meant - it's not gotten worse.

The meaning of a DKIM signature has been kept intentionally minimal and vague. 
Something like alternative (b) moves towards complex relationships among 
signers, whereas (a) retains basic simplicity.

So, I hope (a) is the choice.

To the extent that a signer includes the DKIM-signature header of a previous 
signature, that ought to mean nothing more than ordering, not semantics.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>