Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephen, > > >> So, in an attempt to move towards that, let me >> try to ask for opinions on this discrete part of >> the issue: When an n-th signature(*) is added by >> some signer, does that mean: >> a) I take independent responsibility for having >> sent/fowarded (the bits of) this email (that I've >> signed), or, >> b) Me too, whatever that previous good signer >> meant - it's not gotten worse. > > The meaning of a DKIM signature has been kept intentionally minimal > and vague. Something like alternative (b) moves towards complex > relationships among signers, whereas (a) retains basic simplicity. > > So, I hope (a) is the choice. > > To the extent that a signer includes the DKIM-signature header of a > previous signature, that ought to mean nothing more than ordering, not > semantics.
I have to agree with Dave here. (b) sounds way too confusing. -Ekr _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
