[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt (issue 1519?)

[Jim Fenton]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> This draft goes to the opposite extreme of the ASP draft and increases 
> the restrictions for "all" compliance as well. This draft indicates 
> _ALL_ messages are to include a signature with an i= parameter matches 
> that of an identity within the From header.  This is not the defined 
> use for RFC 4871.

It is true that RFC 4871 does not require or define any binding between 
the i= parameter and the From header field (or any other header field, 
for that matter).  That is defined by *SP.  The question is really the 
nature of that binding:  whether it's the entire address (in cases where 
i= has a local-part) or whether it's just the domain.  That seems to be 
what's at the heart of issue 1519.
>
>
> The ASP approach creates fewer corner cases.  At least with the ASP 
> draft, any risk of misuse remains within the control of a domain to 
> rectify.

This last statement I don't understand.  Can you give an example of 
"misuse within the control of a domain" that is introduced by matching 
the local-part?

-Jim