Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Concerns about DKIM and mailiing lists, etc.

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>  >> The verifier then simply replaces the subject text with the value
>  >> from z= that was signed.  That's one way of solving the mailing list
>  >> subject munging problem.
>  >
>  > This goes far beyond the specification.  While it might be useful, it
>  > is really a heuristic and it is not part of the draft that is seeking
>  > standardization.
>
> This was offered simply to counter the idea that it's impossible to 
> validate mail which has undergone a subject munge.
And I think that this highlights the need to be extremely careful about what is 
being claim and what is being discussed.
This being a standards group, our task is to discuss global specifications that 
reach community consensus.  That means they represent a public, common 
understanding of what can and cannot be done.
Anyone is free to go beyond that understanding, but when they do, they are 
outside of this forum.  Unless a behavior is explicitly specified and agreed to, 
the other participants in the mechanism -- e.g., use of DKIM -- cannot know it 
will happen.  If they cannot know it will happen, they cannot plan for it.
d/

--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html