[ietf-dkim] Nits with section 3 Operation Overview

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:28:12PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
> The issue whether the i= identity has been validated in some fashion can 
> not be answered without some specific additional assertion added to DKIM.

I'm really having trouble understanding that since i= must be part or
equal to d=, why there needs to be further validation.

Why would a signing domain add an i= that would not be responsible? If
the answer is "because you can", why would one believe that d= would be
responsible?


-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald at e-dialog.com
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 
:: www.e-dialog.com