[ietf-dkim] Output summary

[Jeff Macdonald]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld
<R.E.Sonneveld at sonnection.nl> wrote:

<snip>

>  From the design view of DKIM I know we should not want it, but what if
> we would add the From address as a third _required_ output parameter?
> With From: I mean: that particular From address that was used to verify
> that particular signature for which the success status is handed over.
> So if there are two From's, and only one signature verifies, the upper
> layer application knows for which of the two From addresses the success
> status applies. Then the upper layer applications are enabled to perform
> whatever they want to do. Wouldn't that also mitigate the problem of
> multiple singletons present?
>
> As the From: address is mandatory input for the signature, it may be a
> logical step to also make it mandatory in the output?

If we simply view DKIM as one module of many that are used to make a
decision, then the decision process can choose which modules are
needed to make a choice. For example, one could use the DKIM module
and RFC5322 header module, while another could use the DKIM module,
the RFC5322 module and the ADSP module.

So, while it may be convient for DKIM to provide RFC5322From, it is
obtainable via other ways. I think DKIM's output should just be the
DKIM bits.

-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA