On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of McDowell, Brett >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:38 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [dkim-ops] RFC 5672 and optional vs. default value of AUID >> >> So, should the signature be processed as if the default value for the >> AUID (i= value) were present or processed as if the AUID (i= value) >> wasn't even part of the specification? > > Actually now I'm confused by your use of "processed", so I want to give a > more precise answer. > > If "processed" describes the blob of data fed to the hash function, then the > absence of "i=" in a signature must of course be reflected in the hashing > when verifying or it won't verify. (That is, you don't feed the default > value explicitly when "i=" is missing or the hash will not match.) > > As far as determining the "i=" value once the signature has been processed, > we do the former; if you ask the library "What was the signer's identity?", > we will give back either the literal value (if "i=" was present) or the > specified default value based on "d=" (if "i=" was absent). >
I meant the later, thanks for answering. _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
