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

[Dave Crocker]

Patrick Peterson wrote:
>  
>>       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?

Discussion about raw DKIM signing sometimes seems to have the underlying view 
that the From field is validated as being accurate. At the least, this seems 
to vary among different folk. I wanted to see whether there is a clear view 
one way or the other.

I'm not suggesting "fixing" DKIM.  I'm seeking clarity among the community. 
(It's a California thing.)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net