[ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process

[Eliot Lear]

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=. 
>
> Eliot,
>
> But with respect to "assertions" about a message, DKIM only has 
> valid-vs-unsigned.
>
> 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?

Eliot