+1 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:45 AM To: Eliot Lear Cc: DKIM WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process
Eliot Lear wrote: > The whole point of l= was to say that beyond it you should treat the > content as suspicious. Eliot, Since DKIM Signature does not make statements about the differential handling of content, signed or unsigned, I'm not clear what you base this assertion on. Can you clarify? As I understand DKIM Signature, there is are validly signed messages (with their identifiers) and there are all other messages, and that binary distinction is the limit of DKIM semantics. You appear to be going beyond the specification. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
