Mike:
I have no problem with this posting. It does exactly what I am
requesting. The message would not have been sent if Dave followed
the format that you did.
I especially like the part where you said: "... there is absolutely
no reason why we need to break existing compatibility to achieve the
goal of being able to determine whether ..."
I am sorry that you somehow feel that I have attacked you. This
exactly the kind of discussion that is in line with the charter.
Russ
At 11:35 AM 3/21/2006, you wrote:
I'm really astonished that an open item that had no list discussion that
I can find and that is backward incompatible with -allman-01 is being
"accepted". Why? Worse, is that there is absolutely no reason why we
need to break existing compatibility to achieve the goal of being able
to determine whether it's the header or body that's broken. Nor does it
appear that anybody's thought through which -- header or body --
actually more likely to break in transit.
I have for quite some time been placing a hash of the headers alone in
the DKIM signature in an unassigned tag (X= in this message) to help
me determine whether it's the headers or the body that broke on a failed
signature. It's cheap: I just call SHAx_Final when the headers are
hashed; it's unobtrusive: it doesn't require that we change our current
hashing mechanism; and it doesn't bring up any nettlesome issues with
l= which are tricky.
Given this, I consider the adoption to be seriously harmful to our
existing implementations, and counterproductive.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html