I am in the process of reviewing the technical setup of a client installation.
This client is using the VERP string (Return Path / Envelope From) in the i= of
their DKIM signature.
The signature looks like this:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=ci; d=inbox.example.com;
On 6/17/2013 2:36 PM, Laura Atkins wrote:
I am in the process of reviewing the technical setup of a client
installation. This client is using the VERP string (Return Path /
Envelope From) in the i= of their DKIM signature.
The signature looks like this:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1;
On Jun 17, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Based on my understanding of DKIM, this isn't necessarily violating
the DKIM spec, but it does seem to be not the right thing to use for
the i= value
My understanding of i= semantics is that it has no formal meaning except to
its
My understanding matches Dave's. The i= value is an opaque token
which for purely historical reasons has to look like an address in a
subdomain of the d= domain.
I've asked the client why they chose that, we'll see what they day.
Huh, that's what the code does. Should it do something else?
I haven't been able to find anything that discusses the intention behind the
i=. I expect
they chose this i= because that's the envelope from, but the i= is suppose to
be a person,
not a mechanical address, correct?
Historical bit: it is my impression that i= was invented by people who
were
On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:09 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
I haven't been able to find anything that discusses the intention behind the
i=. I expect
they chose this i= because that's the envelope from, but the i= is suppose
to be a person,
not a mechanical address, correct?
At one stage i= was thought to represent different mail streams with different
reputation,
however this did not get any traction...
As far as I can recall, I don't think anyone but you had that theory.
If you want two streams, you use two d= domains.
On my system the i= tells how the mail was
On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:58 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At one stage i= was thought to represent different mail streams with
different reputation,
however this did not get any traction...
As far as I can recall, I don't think anyone but you had that theory.
If you want two
On 6/17/2013 9:20 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:58 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
At one stage i= was thought to represent different mail streams with
different reputation,
however this did not get any traction...
...
The question was raised and dispelled on
