Tony Finch wrote: > Isn't the i= tag the new identity that Keith is asking for?
Checking the draft, i= is optional, must be below d=, it's not required to match anything selected by h=, and it's a "verifier policy issue" [XREF TBD] with the fine print. I'm not sure, but for Keith's idea the "signing entity" can at least pick whatever header fields it likes in h=, that could be From + Sender + Resent-From + Resent-Sender + List-Id or a hypothetical Signed-From. In Jim's example... <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dkim/374/raw> ...it was "only" From. Date, Subject, Content-*. Signing the Subject and the Content-Transfer-Encoding might be a bad idea, and why not To and Cc ? Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
