Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> Ok, done. Will you then say what you think about it?
>
> Filename: draft-vesely-dkim-joint-sigs
> Revision: 00
> Title: DKIM Joint Signatures
> Creation_date: 2010-09-15
> WG ID: Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 5
>
> Abstract:
> DKIM Joint Signatures provides a means to limit the responsibility of
> a message that implied by signing it, and possibly transfer the
> responsibility to a third party.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vesely-dkim-joint-sigs-00.txt
The I-D lacks examples to better understand this proposal.
I see these generic possibilities:
First party Example:
From: [email protected]
DKIM-Required: example.com
DKIM-Signature: d=example.com h="From:DKIM-Required"
Third party Example:
From: [email protected]
DKIM-Required: thirdparty.com
DKIM-Signature: d=thirdparty.com h="From:DKIM-Required"
Is this proposal a method to expose the thirdparty.com as an
"authorized" signer?
I am not clear with the rational in the verifier procedure itemized in
section 3 "The DKIM-Required Field."
--
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
