> -----Original Message----- > From: John L [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:44 PM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Next steps for draft-ietf-dkim-ssp > > >> It's when the signature matches the From: address. Shouldn't be too > >> hard to say it again. > > > > Wouldn't the better (correct) way to state this be: > > > > It's when the signing domain (d=) and signature matches the From: > > address domain. > > That's what I think, but the current draft has the i= override the d= so > if the From: is [email protected], the signature is d=b.com [email protected], then as > currently spec'ed, that doesn't match. >
This goes back to all the long drawn out discussions when it was changed from "Sender Signing Policy" to "Author Domain Signing Policy". If we start talking about the Right hand side then we aren't talking domains but addresses. I was originally in favor of a broader scope for "SSP" that would have gone beyond just the From: address domain to include other signers. The narrower scope met what I perceive as the needs of heavily phished brands so I was comfortable going with the narrower scope. The i= override doesn't make sense to me if the intent of ADSP is signing by author domains. I thought this was why we ended up going with "all" and "discardable" conceptually. Is there anyone on the list that would realistically plan on implementing/publishing ADSP using an "i=" override? If so, could they explain the logic and necessity of doing so? What is the anticipated benefit? Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
