On 26/Apr/11 23:13, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 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.
Yes, "any possible owner-specific semantics are outside the scope of
DKIM." However, the MLM does explore circumstances outside such
scope. Perhaps, this can be said explicitly:
A signing MLM can make its role apparent by properly choosing the
signing domain, SDID, the one used in the "d=" tag of the DKIM
signatures added by the MLM. Recognizing the role of a signer
allows to infer implied semantics that are outside the scope of
DKIM. Two criteria are as follows:
* 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.
* When no List-Post field is present, a signature can be
identified as pertaining to an authoring or digesting MLM if the
list-id-namespace (see [LIST-ID]) matches the signing domain.
These spontaneous bindings are assessment-level heuristics whose
use is hereby suggested. They are not specified by any currently
existing standard, and not required.
(I left off that "the reputation of the signer will be a more critical
data point".)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
