> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 5:09 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Data integrity claims > > > I thought the "What DKIM does" thing was a long-dead horse, as we'd long > > ago reached consensus that what DKIM does is provide a stable identifier > > on the message, and nothing more. That makes this assertion inapposite. > > Does it? If the identifier is bound to the hashed information, I think it > makes complete sense to believe one can make something of that content and > it's relation to the identifier. It provides a stable identifier, but that > identifier is inextricably tied to the signed content.
There might be a better way to characterize it, but I think the answer comes from the errata RFC upon which we reached consensus a while back: The primary payload delivered by a DKIM validation is the validated domain name. Reputation, for example, would be checked against that, and not against the body hash or some other part of the message. The claim that it "binds elements related to the RFC5322 header fields with the message body" is the means of the algorithm, not the end. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
