[ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process
lear at cisco.com
Thu May 21 08:59:21 PDT 2009
On 5/21/09 5:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 5/21/09 4:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> I think the point is that you can't make assertions of responsibility
>> for the information beyond l=.
> But with respect to "assertions" about a message, DKIM only has
> There is no concept of "responsibility for information behond l=".
Sure there is. It is simply "unsigned" beyond the value of l=.
>> That was always the implication, right?
> It is no where in the specification and I believe it never was.
I believe this was explicitly stated elsewhere, like on this list.
>> So now you're a mail firewall and you see lots of URLs tagged at the
>> end, with nobody asserting responsibility. That's an indicator that
>> there is a problem. What one does with that problem is well beyond
>> the scope of DKIM, but one could easily see several different courses
>> of action:
> Now you inventing behaviors that go far beyond the specification.
Well, that is what I wrote (I concede I don't know the difference
between well beyond an far beyond ;-)
> If such behaviors are necessary to make l= meaningful and useful --
> and your line of frankly reasonable thinking does seem to imply this,
> though I doubt it was your intention -- then the specification for
> this bit of mechanism is seriously deficient.
Perhaps, but why do you think so?
More information about the ietf-dkim