Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 //i= parameter

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:33:18 -0700

On May 31, 2006, at 5:29 PM, <[email-masked]>  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Current statement 5.1 is fine, your changes introducing a -i  
> requirement
> bypasses the main thrust of DKIM. I signed this message/I did not sign
> this message.

The location of the key (d=) clearly indicates who signed the  
message.  The i= parameter is an added assurance that might be made  
by the signing domain.  This i= parameter is optional.  Lack of this  
assurance does not, by itself, indicate abusive behavior or detract  
from the value of the signature.  The signing domain can still be  
held accountable for abuse.   It is not practical to expect all  
providers will regulate use of each and every email-address.  Not  
changing the appearance of the message is a primary goal, yet  
injection of a Sender header, as example, makes such a change  
necessitating customer support calls explaining the questionable  
modification.

An expectation that all email-address use must be restricted would be  
highly repressive and likely lessen adoption of DKIM with its many  
other benefits.  DKIM is not about setting up an obstacle course for  
email-address owners to navigate.  With or without the i= parameter,  
DKIM indicates who can be held accountable.  DKIM is not visible  
without annotation.  This annotation must allow for the condition  
where an email-address has not been assured.

-Doug

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html