On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Adding to this, Murray Kucherawy's draft captures the i= (identity) > parameter and a worthless s= (selector) parameter. The s= parameter > offers little value since the d= (key domain) parameter is missing. Only > the d= parameter (upon which the s= parameter rests) represents a domain > validated by a verified signature.
It's not worthless to an implementor or administrator interested in figuring out why his/her mail isn't verifying properly. Any developer would love to have as much of the original data as possible to reconstruct the failure scenario. Not everything in this working group is about crypto and security. We implementors do sometimes think about other things. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
