Al Iverson wrote: > If you would be so kind, would you help me understand the concept of a > UAID a bit better. It's an email address, but it can be > non-resolvable? What's a real world example of that -- in how either > an ISP or ESP would want to sign in such a way? I'm a bit cornfused.
Al, 1. I can easily believe that the Errata text needs to be even more clear about this string. Submissions to improve it are eagerly sought... 2. It is *not* an email address, in terms of the DKIM base spec. So some signers well might choose to make it be an actual email address, but that's not something that DKIM knows (or cares) about. 3. It is an identifier that is created by the signer, to indicate the user or agent that wants the signing to be done. The 'role' of this user or agent is unspecified; the message might not have any other reference to this user or agent. (Notably this means that there is no indication that it is the author, and it well might not be the author.) 4. For receivers, this string is completely opaque -- that is, uninterpretable. Therefore, within the scope of the DKIM base specification, the entire i= string is *always* unresolvable, in that it has no syntax and no semantics, other than stri...@string2, and string2 equals d= or is a subdomain of d=. 5. It might be worth including the i= value, when communicating back with the signer; it might facilitate auditing and/or debugging. 6. There might be special cases that allow a receiver to extract useful information from the string, although this is entirely outside the DKIM base specification. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
