[ietf-dkim] Choices about Practice vs. Publication

[Steve Atkins]

On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:

>
>>   Steve pointed out to me that a basic challenge, here, is that  
>> DKIM does not define a signature as meaning that the signer is  
>> asserting the truthfulness of any particular bit of information in  
>> the message.  That's the inherent difference between the mild  
>> "taking responsibility" semantics that we have given to a DKIM  
>> signature, versus "asserting correctness" or the like.
>>
>>    My suggestion to deal with this is to define the basic DKIM  
>> sematnic that all DKIM-* headers are asserted to be valid, if they  
>> are included in the signature.
>
> This assertion in many cases would need to exclude the From  
> address, but this header is required to be signed.  Use of the "i='  
> parameter is likely the only positive means to communicate such an  
> assurance and is already defined within DKIM base.

"From" does not start with "DKIM-".

Cheers,
   Steve