Dave CROCKER wrote: > 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=.
Keep in mind, I view this statement with inconsistent points and idea - makes no engineering logical sense. You have reconfirmed there is a protocol consistency rule check here - the string2 syntax, format and value requirements. In that vain, it is not opaque and it is interpretable and subject to a possible 100% legitimate verifier protocol consistency checking. -- Sincerely Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
