On Wednesday 05 December 2007 13:36, Douglas Otis wrote: > A domain wishing to protect their transactional mail may decide to > publish "strict" to limit the acceptance of "non-compliant" messages. > > Compliance now requires the i= to not include a localpart, or for the > localpart to match with the From header. > > This unnecessary requirement may produce "false positive" detections > of bad acts when signing domain uses i= as intended in the base draft, > which is to indicate on who's behalf the message was signed. > > Options to mitigate "false positives" would be to: > > 1- Exclude the i= parameter > 2- Add another signature specifically signing the From as well
Since the signer is controlled by the same entity, option 3 would be don't send messages where i= doesn't match what's in From. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
