> *... Recognizing the role of a signer can be important for inferring the > semantics of any signed content. > > * A signature can be identified as pertaining to an aliasing or resending MLM > if the domain-part of the List-Post field matches the signing domain.
I think I understand the intent, here, and I'm supportive of the goal. However the text is technically invalid. A DKIM signature has only one meaning, relative to existing, formal specification. "Inferring" meanings beyond what is defined is very, very far outside of the scope of DKIM and it isn't documented anywhere, including the MLM document. To the extent that there is a desire to specify additional, standardized semantics when an MLM adds a signature, that requires an additional, standardized specification (and almost certainly an additional, standardized header field...) The best I can suggest is something along the lines of noting that assessment-level heuristics can be aided by certain choices of signature d= names. And then specifying what they might be, so that both signers and verifiers know how to encourage success for the heuristics. mumble. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
