Yep, that was the question -- thank you :-) On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> 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? > >> I'm asking the question because of this section related to >> restricting key applicability across the namespace using t=s in the >> key record has a dependency on the AUID in the signature: > > If there's no i= then the domain in the implicit i= is the same as the > domain in the d= so t=s will always be satisfied. > > Or is that not the right question? > > R's, > John _______________________________________________ dkim-ops mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-ops
