Jim Fenton wrote: > The correct test case is: > >>From [email protected] > Valid signature from [email protected] ... > At this point, the mailing list manager would normally sign the > message. Let's examine this with the i= and d= choices: > > Using i= as the basis for Author Signature, the list can sign the > message, and the eventual verifier/assessor that does an ADSP check will > see that it (still) lacks an Author Signature since > [email protected] does not match [email protected]. > > Using d= as the basis for Author Signature, if the list signs the > message, an eventual verifier/assessor will erroneously see that > signature as an Author Signature, and therefore might not give the > message the desired treatment.
I think there are two sources of confusion for this round of ADSP discussion. The first is that the term "Author Signature" encourages one to think that DKIM is used to sign with the full author email address, rather than with the /domain/ of the author's address. We fixed that error in the name of the document, but forgot to carry it through to the details of the spec. DKIM is about domains, not email addresses. And that's all ADSP should be. Using i= encourages this cofusion. Using "Author Signature" rather than "Author Domain Signature" also encourages it. The second is whether a receiver should be asked to enforce controls for usage by folks /within/ the originating domain's span of control. It's one thing to worry about unauthorized use by someone /outside/ of the owning domain's control, but quite another to ask a receiving system to help keep the owning domain's own house clean. If the domain owner cannot exert enough administrative control, to keep signatures for mailing lists separate from signatures for authors, then that's the owner's problem. It shouldn't be the receivers. The same applies for one author vs. another, within the same domain. The specification and semantics of ADSP get simpler, cleaner and properly scoped, when d= is used. Using i= really does invite a complex of issues that should be outside the scope of DKIM and ADSP. Use d=. d/ ps. That includes dropping the "ADSP is incompatible" note. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
