> 2. Does RFC 4871 contain any claims that a DKIM > signature carries a > claim by the signer that any of the body or header content is > "correct" or > "truthful"? > > I ask because I believe it does not carry any such > claim and that, > rather, a DKIM signature asserts a very generic degree of signer > "responsibility" which does not extend to formal claims of > correctness. I agree. RFC 4871 does not contain claims that a DKIM signature implies content is "truthful".
Your intent is unclear from your question: if we are both right, is this a good thing? Or do we need to modify RFC 4871? pat _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
