MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > 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? >
It really applies to the implementation of the checker, and not to the publication of ADSP records. At the risk of repeating myself, here's an example of when it's important. Suppose the ietf.org mailing list manager signs its mail using [email protected]. The IETF Chair sends a message to the list, using From: <[email protected]>. I contend it would be bad for the mailing list manager signature to be confused with an author signature. This example involves the use of local-parts, but one could also come up with (somewhat more contrived) examples where the mailing list manager is at lists.example.com and some users are at users.example.com. If the keys are published in the example.com domain (d=example.com) and i= isn't being used, it isn't possible to distinguish author signatures and list signatures. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
