[ietf-dkim] Thomas Interpretation vs. Levine Interpretation, it's' both!
gmail.sant9442 at winserver.com
Sat Oct 17 20:36:37 PDT 2009
John Levine wrote:
>> But whatever, we may need a straw poll followed by a clarification RFC,
>> to settle once and for all whether Levine or Thomas is canon.
> Mike's version is what the RFC says. My version is the way that way
> too many people will misunderstand it, no matter what it actually
> You've illustrated my point very well. Thanks!
So can you help clarify your RFC 5617 work?
I honestly feel most people who decide to support it are going to
follow what its says, just like David MacQuigg posted here today:
So they will follow it verbatim.
RFC 5617 section 4.2.1. Record Syntax writes:
all All mail from the domain is signed with an Author
discardable All mail from the domain is signed with an
Author Domain Signature. Furthermore, if a
message arrives without a valid Author Domain
Signature due to modification in transit,
submission via a path without access to a
signing key, or any other reason, the domain
encourages the recipient(s) to discard it.
However, once implementators do follow the above, I think you are
saying, it will be problem for 3rd party signers?
B.4. Third-Party Senders
Another common use case is for a third party to enter into an
agreement whereby that third party will send bulk or other mail on
behalf of a designated Author or Author Domain, using that domain
in the [RFC5322] From: or other headers. Due to the many and
varied complexities of such agreements, third-party signing is not
addressed this specification.
This this mean, if I read you and thomas right, DKIM=ALL means 3rd
party signers are possible without valid 1st signatures?
CHAIRS: I believe this are honest WG questions.
More information about the ietf-dkim