ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] one more comment I forgot...

2006-01-11 10:04:04

Yes, but mucking up a signature is already covered in the
draft whereas totally ditching one isn't.

(Perhaps "forwarder" wasn't the right term - if not, mea
culpa.)

S.

Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
If a forwarder "didn't" strip a signature from the message, after
decoding the hash and comparing to the information of the forwarding MTA
it wouldn't match anyway, would still invoke some rule on the receiving
entity would it not?

Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:52 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] one more comment I forgot...


...or rather hadn't thought of.

This could be added as "middling" comment #6:

Signature deletion. A mail forwarder might accidentally or
deliberately strip the signature from a message. If the
recipient has previously seen signed messages from that origin,
then strange behaviour might ensue. Similarly if the recipient
is using some policy support like SSP then it might treat the
mail less kindly and in a way that'd maybe be hard to figure out.

I don't know if this could be a real problem or not (would
lean towards "not" I guess) but I suppose its worth thinking
about, even if only to give us one "low/low" entry in one of
the tables:-)

Stephen.



_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org



_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org