On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:51:26AM -0500, Wietse Venema allegedly wrote: > > That's how I was viewing a List signature. It was making no claims > > about the original submission apart from "these are the bits as they > > arrived at the List address". If some final list recipient sees value > > in the original bits, good luck to them.
> Great. Will this also work with other (i.e. non-list) forms of > forwarding? I can't see why not particularly if: On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:09:07AM -0800, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote: > Right. I've always viewed the h= (or z=) headers as being just > [However] We need something to perform the ssp binding, the mere presence of a signature does not imply anything more than taking responsibility for what emanates from that domain. If Mike is saying that explicitness is necessary, then I think that gels with Wietse. Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
