On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:26 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/29/2020 6:40 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > > On 9/27/2020 11:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > DKIM has a single signature binding requirement, the 5322.From > >> DMARC establishes the relationship. > > I don't read it that way. > > > > DKIM binds the signer d= domain and the from.domain with no > > enforcement on it nor any indication that they are related when they > > not the same (the missing link). > > > Absolutely not. Please re-read the DKIM specification more carefully. > It is quite explicit that it is doing not doing this. > > To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you > need to point to the documentation that supports that view. > > > > But if they are the same domain, then they are viewed as self-signed > > and 100% related. > > Not based on the DKIM specification. > > To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you > need to point to the documentation that supports that view. > > > > The DKIM POLICY > > DKIM has no construct that qualifies as 'policy'. > > To the extent that you remain convinced of what you are claiming, you > need to point to the documentation that supports that view. > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > Even though Dave and I may disagree on other things, he is 100% correct on the above. This is one of the reasons we came up with DMARC. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
