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

[Patrick Peterson]

>       2. Does RFC 4871 contain any claims that a DKIM 
> signature carries a 
> claim by the signer that any of the body or header content is 
> "correct" or 
> "truthful"?
> 
>          I ask because I believe it does not carry any such 
> claim and that, 
> rather, a DKIM signature asserts a very generic degree of signer 
> "responsibility" which does not extend to formal claims of 
> correctness.
I agree. RFC 4871 does not contain claims that a DKIM signature implies
content is "truthful".

Your intent is unclear from your question: if we are both right, is this
a good thing? Or do we need to modify RFC 4871?

pat