On 3/20/09, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > John R. Levine wrote: >> Assessors know whether a message is signed, and if it has valid >> signature(s), the domain(s) that signed them. All that other stuff in the >> signature is implementation details. > > RFC 4871 gives no precise definition of what an "assessor" > can use to make whatever decisions it wants to draw from > the message *and* the signature(s). That you have a particular > use case in mind that doesn't care about "implementation > details" does not and should not imply that that is the only > valid use of DKIM information. That is why the errata is so > wrong headed.
+1 -- hls _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
