[ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft

[Jim Fenton]

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> But, to go further, if the signer goes to the trouble of including an
> "i=" (which he is not obliged to do), then surely recipients are
> entitled to assume he did so for some good reason. So if he said
> i=subdomain.example.com, then surely the From/Sender can be expected
> to be from that subdomain; and if he said i=someone at example.com, then
> surely recipients can assume that 'someone' had indeed played some
> part in sending it.
>
In addition to the points made by others, I'd like to point out that
there are no semantics associated with the presence or absence of the i=
parameter.  There is always a signing identity; if d=example.com and the
signing identity happens to be @example.com, then the i= parameter may
be omitted.

We're straying quite a bit from the SSP topic.  I'd still like to get
actual feedback on that draft.

-Jim