[ietf-dkim] DKIM does not claim content is correct

[Jon Callas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>
>
> With DKIM i=, it becomes possible to convey a stable identifier  
> (though of
> course there's no guarantee that the identifier is stable, leading  
> to John's
> t= suggestion.)  Without DKIM (or something like it), as we know, any
> potential identifiers are trivially forged.
>

I want to point out as well that a stable identifier doesn't have to  
be a field in the DKIM header.

It's trivial to make a new header for the stable identifier and have  
that be in the list of headers signed.

I believe that this is even a *better* solution than trying to make i=  
be something that it is and cannot be, and better than adding in a new  
DKIM option.

That DKIM-base allows, supports, and encourages a way to have  
additional headers that are signed is a major feature. We should  
encourage it.

	Jon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFJf20esTedWZOD3gYRAgebAKDkfmpaYc9C1ElN+tifEwbXwzaZmACg42Iq
rzP2bcJP+AAJ+smlSkcSVxk=
=8Xrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----