Jim Fenton wrote: > I guess I should be paying more attention to the dkim-deployment > drafts. > > RFC 4871 is very explicit about the meaning of the g= value. Last > paragraph of section 3.2: > > Tags that have an empty value are not the same as omitted tags. An > omitted tag is treated as having the default value; a tag with an > empty value explicitly designates the empty string as the value. > For > example, "g=" does not mean "g=*", even though "g=*" is the default > for that tag. > > The semantics of g= has no dependency on the presence or absence of > the v= tag/value. One of the ways of revoking a DKIM key is to > apply a null g= tag (g=;) which makes it unusable. Coming up with a > way of guessing whether the signing domain really meant "g=;" is not > a good idea and contradicts the specification.
Hmm -- back in IETF73 we seemed to agree (at least according to the email below) that guessing is, while probably not a good idea, possibly less bad than the alternative: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q4/010820.html Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
