> >>Great. Will this also work with other (i.e. non-list) forms of > >>forwarding? > >> > >> > > > >I can't see why not particularly if:
> >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. > > > > > I'm sorry Mark, this is a bit too terse for my semantic analyzer. I take that as a complement on this list ... > -base > just says > "this is what I claim passed through me". -ssp requires a binding > between the > From: address (sender:? listId:?) and the i= to validate the policy binding, > if any. > > Maybe it's just that I'm confused about what's being asked here. Right. So the question is, can a signature be constructed such that it doesn't interact with SSP to infer a binding above and beyond "I claim it passed through me"? Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
