Current statement 5.1 is fine, your changes introducing a -i requirement bypasses the main thrust of DKIM. I signed this message/I did not sign this message. Thanks,
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:12 PM To: IETF-DKIM Subject: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 //i= parameter ,--- |1.2 Signing Identity | | DKIM separates the question of the identity of the signer of the | message from the purported author of the message. In particular, a | signature includes the identity of the signer. Verifiers can use the | signing information to decide how they want to process the message. | | INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: The signing address associated with a DKIM | signature is not required to match a particular header field | because of the broad methods of interpretation by recipient mail | systems, including MUAs. '___ This statement seems in conflict with this statement: ,--- | 5.1 Determine if the Email Should be Signed and by Whom |... | A signer MUST NOT sign an email if it is unwilling to be held | responsible for the message; in particular, the signer SHOULD ensure | that the submitter has a bona fide relationship with the signer and | that the submitter has tthe right to use the address being claimed. '___ Change to: | A signer MUST NOT sign an email if it is unwilling to be held | responsible for the message; in particular, the signer SHOULD ensure | that the submitter has a bona fide relationship with the signer and | that the submitter has the right to use the address when a specific | address is noted in the i= parameter. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html