That's correct. This is dependant on the receiving system having some knowledge that the UAID is meaningful to parties outside the signing domain, and is therefore not the default.
John Levine wrote: >> Simple answer: If the purpose of the original text was to point out to >> users who the message is really from in cases of suspected forgery, and >> through whatever means the receiving system has decided that the real >> responsible identity is the UAID and not the SDID , it seems to me to >> fit better with the original intention of showing the user who the >> message is really 'from' to point out the UAID. >> > > Except that the UAID might or might not be an e-mail address. The one > on this messgage isn't. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
